Keegans Export Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago 42 minutes ago, NWMag said: I think the PL get around the restraint of trade because I don’t think they stop the actual sponsorship, they just limit how much of it is included in PSR calculations. i.e if a company wanted to sponsor a part of the club for £20 million, but the PL deemed it only £10million for FMV, they can’t stop the company giving us £20million, but when it comes to FFP calculations only £10 million would be included. thats my understanding of it anyway, happy to be proven wrong if so. That's exactly it. I don't think Saudia for example "sponsoring" our shirts for £50m is banned, it's just that they'll only allow us to use a fraction of that towards our PSR calculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago (edited) If Saudi really wanted to turn the screw, just get them to individually sponsor each seat in the stadium for £990k p/a. Edited 10 hours ago by HawK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago And then each girder for another £990k p/a, each step in the stands, every cone at the training ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago 57 minutes ago, NWMag said: I think the PL get around the restraint of trade because I don’t think they stop the actual sponsorship, they just limit how much of it is included in PSR calculations. i.e if a company wanted to sponsor a part of the club for £20 million, but the PL deemed it only £10million for FMV, they can’t stop the company giving us £20million, but when it comes to FFP calculations only £10 million would be included. thats my understanding of it anyway, happy to be proven wrong if so. That used to be the case, but now the rules require that any associated party deals are signed off by the PL before they are agreed. There law doesn't blanket ban restraint of trade, it can be acceptable where it is in the public interest. In the Man City tribunal some elements of the FMV rules were found to be anti-competitive but lawful due to the public interest of having controls over football club's finances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted 10 hours ago Share Posted 10 hours ago 19 minutes ago, HawK said: If Saudi really wanted to turn the screw, just get them to individually sponsor each seat in the stadium for £990k p/a. We could have been a lot more sneaky and push it to the limits like Chelsea have, abd I wish we did. Sell the stack to PIF for £100m. Personal visits of players to ksa for £1m each. Elite Corp box rentals at £1m each. Open club shops in ksa and ksa give each citizen £20 a year to spend in it. Buy some land, sell it on to PIf at 10 times the price. Etc.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted 9 hours ago Share Posted 9 hours ago 14 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: That used to be the case, but now the rules require that any associated party deals are signed off by the PL before they are agreed. There law doesn't blanket ban restraint of trade, it can be acceptable where it is in the public interest. In the Man City tribunal some elements of the FMV rules were found to be anti-competitive but lawful due to the public interest of having controls over football club's finances. Elements of the APT rules were found to be unlawful By Object and as understand Competition Law they were put there to prevent any competitors from gaining financial advantages which is as damning as it could get for the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted 9 hours ago Share Posted 9 hours ago (edited) 27 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Elements of the APT rules were found to be unlawful By Object and as understand Competition Law they were put there to prevent any competitors from gaining financial advantages which is as damning as it could get for the PL. As damning as it gets would be for the tribunal to find that the concept of restricting APTs is unlawful as a whole, they didn't find that, only that excluding shareholder loans, the changes to the burden of proof last year were unlawful, and there was procedural unfairness with delays and lack of access to data, but that the APT rules would otherwise be lawful. Edited 9 hours ago by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted 8 hours ago Share Posted 8 hours ago (edited) 2 hours ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: Prediction time…..another quiet summer window and the likes of Palace, Brighton and Brentford will start to change their stance on the limits as they see their business model begin to fall apart. we’re going to see the bigger teams start looking to buy from South America etc rather than wait and pay a premium from a PL club so double whammy in having more competition to buy and a smaller market to sell in. Brighton’s last windfall drops out after next season and I don’t see another £80m duo there atm The revenue driver is the TV money. PL sales are a bonus. Neither club need sales to be grow in value. Brighton in particular have one of the healthiest wages to revenue ratios. Brighton have been stockpiling great talents they don’t need from clubs with PSR issues (us and Leeds). The other 12 will not mass revolt against FFP and PSR. We need to get that through our heads. Edited 8 hours ago by The College Dropout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted 8 hours ago Share Posted 8 hours ago 4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: The revenue driver is the TV money. PL sales are a bonus. Neither club need sales to be grow in value. Brighton in particular have one of the healthiest wages to revenue ratios. Brighton have been stockpiling great talents they don’t need from clubs with PSR issues (us and Leeds). The other 12 will not mass revolt against FFP and PSR. We need to get that through our heads. Brighton are just a better run version of Mike Ashley's Newcastle. It seems that is what PSR is aiming for other than the established cartel clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted 7 hours ago Share Posted 7 hours ago Villa already tried to raid 43 minutes ago, TRon said: Brighton are just a better run version of Mike Ashley's Newcastle. It seems that is what PSR is aiming for other than the established cartel clubs. It’s nothing like it. The owner of Brighton has taken them from league 2 to an established PL club. Improving every facet of the club. Brighton are close to maximising their potential. He’s built Brighton AFC. Mike Ashley’s Newcastle wasn’t the same thing at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted 7 hours ago Share Posted 7 hours ago 2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Villa already tried to raid It’s nothing like it. The owner of Brighton has taken them from league 2 to an established PL club. Improving every facet of the club. Brighton are close to maximising their potential. He’s built Brighton AFC. Mike Ashley’s Newcastle wasn’t the same thing at all. I said it was a better run version though. Brighton don't have any ambitions to win anything, their aim seems to be buy low sell high. Nothing wrong with that either for a traditionally smaller club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted 6 hours ago Share Posted 6 hours ago 1 hour ago, TRon said: I said it was a better run version though. Brighton don't have any ambitions to win anything, their aim seems to be buy low sell high. Nothing wrong with that either for a traditionally smaller club. Newcastle United are one of the biggest clubs in England. Top 10 at worst. Mike Ashley rode the legacy of the "brand" and exploited loyal fans to gut the club and keep it running as a shell company. Mike Ashley did whatever he could to keep us in the PL for the least amount of money as possible. And the odd relegation was ok. That's it. That's not what has happened at Brighton. The Owner has grown the club and brand tremendously The economic reality of the PL (without PSR) is if you sit outside of the top 6, you need one of the richest entities in the world to invest in you at a cost of billions - if you want to sustainably challenge for trophies. Of the 112 teams in the pro leagues, only 2 teams have an interest in doing that outside of the big 6. We have to stop of this mindset that the rest of the clubs are doing a Mike Ashley or somehow acting against their best interests. They want to grow in a way that financially beneficial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago 26 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Newcastle United are one of the biggest clubs in England. Top 10 at worst. Mike Ashley rode the legacy of the "brand" and exploited loyal fans to gut the club and keep it running as a shell company. Mike Ashley did whatever he could to keep us in the PL for the least amount of money as possible. And the odd relegation was ok. That's it. That's not what has happened at Brighton. The Owner has grown the club and brand tremendously The economic reality of the PL (without PSR) is if you sit outside of the top 6, you need one of the richest entities in the world to invest in you at a cost of billions - if you want to sustainably challenge for trophies. Of the 112 teams in the pro leagues, only 2 teams have an interest in doing that outside of the big 6. We have to stop of this mindset that the rest of the clubs are doing a Mike Ashley or somehow acting against their best interests. They want to grow in a way that financially beneficial. Yes, and they do it by keeping a healthy wage to revenue ratio like you said. To do that they need to keep selling players who are doing well, and replace them with cheaper versions who they hope will do the same thing. As you agree, they are a traditionally smaller club so for them that model is perfect. Is that one we should be expected to follow though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago Why shouldn’t we as a club’s fans expect the owners to grow the club organically rather than artificially by throwing billions of their own money at it? If anything the early expectations of fans, as driven by the media, that PIF would have us go after the Neymar’s and Ronaldo’s of this world has proven to be absolutely nonsense, and luckily so. I look at Chelsea and PSG in particular and laugh at them being hollow clubs in my view despite their owners having spent a fortune on them, and I am grateful that we are progressing under our own steam more or less. The journey may take a few years longer, but it is going to be so much more enjoyable for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago (edited) 55 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Newcastle United are one of the biggest clubs in England. Top 10 at worst. Mike Ashley rode the legacy of the "brand" and exploited loyal fans to gut the club and keep it running as a shell company. Mike Ashley did whatever he could to keep us in the PL for the least amount of money as possible. And the odd relegation was ok. That's it. That's not what has happened at Brighton. The Owner has grown the club and brand tremendously The economic reality of the PL (without PSR) is if you sit outside of the top 6, you need one of the richest entities in the world to invest in you at a cost of billions - if you want to sustainably challenge for trophies. Of the 112 teams in the pro leagues, only 2 teams have an interest in doing that outside of the big 6. We have to stop of this mindset that the rest of the clubs are doing a Mike Ashley or somehow acting against their best interests. They want to grow in a way that financially beneficial. Ashley also plastered every flat surface at SJP with a Shite Direct logo and NUFC got paid zero for it during most of his reign of cuntishness Is there any other club in the history of the top flight that year after year after year has given away one of their most valuable money making assets for free ? And where were the Premier League’s PSR & APT nonces with their FMV equations when we were getting fuck all for something worth tens of millions ? They didn’t give one solitary fuck, because we were never ever going to be a threat to the cartel Edited 5 hours ago by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago Can I explain PSR in simple terms? Let this sink in and make of it what you will. If a player was available for .... let's say £100m. Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd and perhaps Arsenal would be ALLOWED to buy that player. Newcastle would NOT BE ALLOWED to buy that player. These are the ridiculous and corrupt rules that the Premier League has enforced. Why has no-one taken this bent cartel to the cleaners? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago 6 hours ago, SAK said: https://archive.ph/NkJI1 Man City APT case decision to be made by tribunal panel in February, hopefully they side with City in their ruling making the APT rules null and void. After the transfer window has closed. How convenient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago 11 minutes ago, Rod said: Can I explain PSR in simple terms? Let this sink in and make of it what you will. If a player was available for .... let's say £100m. Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd and perhaps Arsenal would be ALLOWED to buy that player. Newcastle would NOT BE ALLOWED to buy that player. These are the ridiculous and corrupt rules that the Premier League has enforced. Why has no-one taken this bent cartel to the cleaners? Nobody else wants to spend £100m on a player though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: Nobody else wants to spend £100m on a player though. The example I have used is true though. Regardless of whether this hypothetical scenario happens. These rules are an absolute disgrace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago (edited) 17 minutes ago, Rod said: Can I explain PSR in simple terms? Let this sink in and make of it what you will. If a player was available for .... let's say £100m. Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd and perhaps Arsenal would be ALLOWED to buy that player. Newcastle would NOT BE ALLOWED to buy that player. These are the ridiculous and corrupt rules that the Premier League has enforced. Why has no-one taken this bent cartel to the cleaners? Also applies in reverse, the only clubs able to hold onto an exceptional player who has risen in value to £100m would be Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal Everyone else would find themselves in a position where they have to sell, even if they didn’t want to Edited 4 hours ago by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago 7 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said: Also applies in reverse, the only clubs able to hold onto an exceptional player who has risen in value to £100m would be Chelsea, Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal Everyone else would find themselves in a position where they have to sell, even if they didn’t want to Tell that to the accountant TCD. He doesn't seem to grasp that fact or is reluctant to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 23 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Nobody else wants to spend £100m on a player though. In a non-PSR world, why would NUFC not want to spend £100m on a player, or even buy several £100m players ? Edited 3 hours ago by bobbydazzla Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilcline Posted 3 hours ago Share Posted 3 hours ago 57 minutes ago, Sima said: After the transfer window has closed. How convenient. Wasn't it exactly the same a few months back? Sure the original ruling came out first or second week of September. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, bobbydazzla said: In a non-PSR world, why would NUFC not want to spend £100m on a player, or even buy several £100m players ? I meant besides us. The larger structure doesn’t care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 2 hours ago, Rod said: The example I have used is true though. Regardless of whether this hypothetical scenario happens. These rules are an absolute disgrace. I guess I’m beyond that point. Which I obviously agree with. It’s shit. For us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now