Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[SteV]

1 hour ago, tarie4 said:

These guys are billionaires for a reason

So was Ellis Short…

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, tarie4 said:

These guys are billionaires for a reason; they see things we don't. Especially a fund like Clearlake.

 

 

That’s where we completely differ  

[Abacus]

So is Mike Ashley.

 

Not sure if anyone knows for sure what PIF/Ruebens are in it for, though we can all have a guess. 

 

Fully likely in the case of PIF they want to be involved with a successful team in the most watched league in the most popular sport.

 

Also a chance, though, that their investment was to buy a club that's value could be increased massively. However, those two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

 

Anyway, with the league being an increasingly closed shop to new entrants, I've been idly wondering about parachute payments and interactions with PSR and squad cost ratio.

 

The idea of a parachute payment originally being to allow new clubs to spend a bit to compete, in the knowledge it wouldn't wreck them long term, either to not go bust or so they can rebuild the next season in the championship at unarguably an advantage to the others in the championship. And if they did stay up, they retain that crucial TV money, so could in theory carry on.

 

But then, I'm wondering if that's the best plan - carrying on, I mean. Because if they did stay up, the season after that they don't get that one off protected spending boost and for PSR reasons may even have to sell some of their players who kept them up, in order to take their squad further, with a few gambles on who they replace them with.

 

So actually, is really the best strategy to become a yo-yo club for a good while instead, because in the event of staying up you don't then get a second chance of further investment?

 

If you stay up you're always guaranteed a certain amount of money and maybe if you're the one in a dozen to get it right, that just means maybe you then have a chance of competing in the lower half of the table but not going much further or breaking the next glass ceiling, because from then on, you're playing with the big teams, and it's unlikely your revenue is going to be able to compete to match.

 

TLDR I suppose what I'm saying is which has already been discussed by others, the combination of parachute payments and PSR /squad cost only serves to maintain the status quo. Which isn't really exciting is it?

[Andy84]

Spurs have no PSR issues but have cash flow problems. No money there to do deals 

[Stifler]

34 minutes ago, Abacus said:

So is Mike Ashley.

 

Not sure if anyone knows for sure what PIF/Ruebens are in it for, though we can all have a guess. 

 

Fully likely in the case of PIF they want to be involved with a successful team in the most watched league in the most popular sport.

 

Also a chance, though, that their investment was to buy a club that's value could be increased massively. However, those two don't need to be mutually exclusive.

 

Anyway, with the league being an increasingly closed shop to new entrants, I've been idly wondering about parachute payments and interactions with PSR and squad cost ratio.

 

The idea of a parachute payment originally being to allow new clubs to spend a bit to compete, in the knowledge it wouldn't wreck them long term, either to not go bust or so they can rebuild the next season in the championship at unarguably an advantage to the others in the championship. And if they did stay up, they retain that crucial TV money, so could in theory carry on.

 

But then, I'm wondering if that's the best plan - carrying on, I mean. Because if they did stay up, the season after that they don't get that one off protected spending boost and for PSR reasons may even have to sell some of their players who kept them up, in order to take their squad further, with a few gambles on who they replace them with.

 

So actually, is really the best strategy to become a yo-yo club for a good while instead, because in the event of staying up you don't then get a second chance of further investment?

 

If you stay up you're always guaranteed a certain amount of money and maybe if you're the one in a dozen to get it right, that just means maybe you then have a chance of competing in the lower half of the table but not going much further or breaking the next glass ceiling, because from then on, you're playing with the big teams, and it's unlikely your revenue is going to be able to compete to match.

 

TLDR I suppose what I'm saying is which has already been discussed by others, the combination of parachute payments and PSR /squad cost only serves to maintain the status quo. Which isn't really exciting is it?

In terms of property, the Rueben brothers own about 20% of Newcastle City Centre. They owned an area of the city that has long been forgotten about and neglected.

I think in the wider context they wanted leverage in order to push through what they wanted to do, not that I think they would have needed it.

I also think most of it is lead by Jamie, he see’s what everyone else see’s. Football wealth is going to explode as soon as a direct to consumer streaming deal is allowed and potentially the end of the 3pm KO’s. Not to mention if some sort of ESL or closed Premier League ever happens.

I also think unlike his father and uncle, he has more of an ego that needs to filled. He wants to have a reason for his mates to hang round with him more and to show off to people who are already incredibly wealthy. This on top of the fact that I think he wants to be seen as more successful than his father and uncle, and what better way of increasing wealth then getting in on football before it’s next boom?

It is the same reason as to why he was also allegedly interested in buying the New York Jets NFL team.

[ToonAbroad]

Surely this is all completely legit and above board for 4 games, won't be anything untoward no no.

[gbandit]

Chelsea Residences in Dubai? What the fuck does it even mean 

[McCormick]

DAMAC just builds gaudy themed real estate projects for people with a bit of money but no taste. There’s a DAMAC building in Jeddah that was built a few years ago where everything in it is Versace; tables, carpets, the lot. Awful.
 

The place is falling apart now and literally stinks of piss. Very on brand for Chelsea I suppose.

 

 

Edited 47 minutes ago by McCormick

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Chelsea Residences in Dubai? What the fuck does it even mean 

Branded condos are all the rage in the UAE believe it or not. 

[gbandit]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Branded condos are all the rage in the UAE believe it or not. 

Sounds absurdly grim 

 

 

Edited 47 minutes ago by gbandit

[Abacus]

Edit just answered my own question 

 

 

Edited 41 minutes ago by Abacus

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Sounds absurdly grim 

 

 

 

Just another item in the game of oneupmanship which rich people love to play - at our expense i might add. 

[Abacus]

I suppose you're just advertising that development.

[McCormick]

DAMAC is all "style" but zero sense. They literally had a condo where you could drive your car into an elevator and it would take the car up to your bedroom. Never thought that perhaps having car exhaust fumes in the place you sleep may not be the greatest idea.

 

 

Edited 37 minutes ago by McCormick

[gbandit]

Just now, McCormick said:

DAMAC is all "style" but zero sense. They literally had a condo where you could drive your car into an elevator and it would take the car up to your bedroom. Never thought that perhaps having car fumes in the place you sleep may not be the greatest idea.

 

As long as Chelsea are liable to cover the insurance claims for anyone dying in their Chelsea bedrooms I’m happy with the PSR arrangement. What a farce. I’d just kick Chelsea out of the league, they’re no longer a football club. They’re just a brand with a partner club at this stage 

[ToonAbroad]

Surely they'll return as front of shirt sponsor next season too, if only for the 'Return of DAMAC' headlines.