Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[El Prontonise]

5 minutes ago, gdm said:

this really can’t be doing the Premier League as a brand and a league any good at all. I’ve almost had enough with it all and we just had our best season ever. Viewing figures were already down last season, how many more people will start to turn off?

 

I didn’t grow up loving football for the financial shite to mean more than the actual game on the pitch. 

 

Viewing figures were down because of the title and relegation being done before the start of April.

[gbandit]

5 minutes ago, gdm said:

this really can’t be doing the Premier League as a brand and a league any good at all. I’ve almost had enough with it all and we just had our best season ever. Viewing figures were already down last season, how many more people will start to turn off?

 

I didn’t grow up loving football for the financial shite to mean more than the actual game on the pitch. 

Classic age old trope. Greed intensifies more and more until the thing eats itself. We’re at the point where football has self-cannibalised one of its arms. As soon as it starts on the foot it’s all over 

[El Prontonise]

2 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Classic age old trope. Greed intensifies more and more until the thing eats itself. We’re at the point where football has self-cannibalised one of its arms. As soon as it starts on the foot it’s all over 

 

The thing is despite all the money in the PL, plenty of clubs are still losing money.  It's all bonkers.

 

PSR is not fit for purpose but this American takeover of the game in this country is deeply worrying.

[gbandit]

2 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

PSR is not fit for purpose but this American takeover of the game in this country is deeply worrying.

Cannot be stated how horrific it is for the game. We’re going to have more breaks built in, more pre-game entertainment. Music blaring during the game, more interviews with players, changes to the relegation and promotion structure and general all-out commercialisation of every micro and macro element of the game. There’s not a way back from it now 

[tarie4]

4 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Stack anyone?

Only problem would be that the club would have to buy the stack from it’s current owners first😂

 

I dont know why you and others think the club own the Stack. 

[tarie4]

4 hours ago, gdm said:

I’ve never been in the stack but there’s no way it’s worth £50m probably not even worth £2m

We cant sell ourselves something we dont own. We collect the revenues but we dont own the Stack unfortunately.  

[madras]

40 minutes ago, Slim said:

How many times it need said? Premier league have tried to close the loop holes and the clubs voted against it.

 

The selling women teams got voted down recently.

Easy way to get it stopped, make it known we are planning on doing it. Stopped within a week I tells ya.

[GeordieDazzler]

Everyone at it 

[madras]

2 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said:

Everyone at it 

Well not everyone.

[Whitley mag]

At this point PSR is no longer fit for purpose and it needs ripped up. Some sort of luxury tax rule like in MLB needs introduced it’s farcical at this point.

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Whitley mag

[David Edgar]

Fair.

[Drewboy74]

I still love to think that our owners have something going on in the background. Like a big fucking football H bomb that'll wipe the cartel out and leave them fighting for mid table in the Sunderland District nannas league.

[Pearljam10]

Its time to wake up PIF

[Optimistic Nut]

1 hour ago, Slim said:

So a fine as per normal.

 

Wonder if they do what seems fashionable for the big clubs with financial difficulties and miss out on the CL, take a "punishment" of a European ban then go full out for top 5. 

[Slim]

14 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Wonder if they do what seems fashionable for the big clubs with financial difficulties and miss out on the CL, take a "punishment" of a European ban then go full out for top 5. 

Sure solicitor will just accept that. 

[Dr Venkman]

On 29/06/2025 at 12:05, The College Dropout said:

They gambled and competed - ultimately fell short but they are not going to fall foul of FFP. So no worse than where they started.  Have a UEFA Cup spot they wouldn’t have if they didn’t gamble. A
 

When we qualified for the CL first time, struggled to compete in the league and in the CL - didn’t qualify for Europe and ended up selling our 2 brightest young players for less then their current market value.  
 

I think overall Howe has outperformed Emery. Can maybe argue Nickson and co. have outperformed Monchi. But the owners, money men at Villa are well ahead. They are managing what is less resources, better than us. 
 

 

There’s even a fan conspiracy that we won’t ever play funny PSR games (although we definitely already have - and done it badly) because of a gentleman’s agreement with the PL that allowed PIF to buy the club. People believe that because we are so stationary when it comes to circumventing PSR. 

Why do you support NUFC?

[Boey_Jarton]

4 hours ago, TK-421 said:

Was thinking about this whole 'selling assets' thing, and I had a query, but not knowing too much about the the various company structures involved with Chel$ea and now A$ton Villa, it may not be possible.

So, the main company, that reports its accounts to the PL for PSR/FFP sell assets to a sub-company which is all allowed and the loophole not closed. Thus giving the main company/Club the cash injection needs for PSR/FFP, but the sold asset stays within 'the group'.

What is to stop, at some point in the future, the parent company winding up the sub-company, and absorbing it back into itself, along with those assets again?

Is this the next play for a few years down the line, so the assets Chelsea (and Villa) sold 'themselves' end up back in the main ownership, to potentially, be sold again?

Or would that not be possible/feasible?

If the 'main company' restructures so that it absorbs assets that were previously sold to a related party (such as a women's football team), the 're-acquired' asset would be subject to its own valuation for FFP purposes and then any subsequent sale for further profit (profit meaning sale proceeds in excess of the 're-acquired' price) would also be subject to FFP valuation. 

 

Unless significant value had somehow been added during the interim period between reacquiring the asset and selling it on again, it would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to justify the recognition of further profit.

 

In other words, selling the women's team is likely to be a trick that can only be played once, assuming the loophole remains open. 

[The College Dropout]

Non footballing purchases don’t count towards PSR.  But the sales do.  
 

In theory you can buy sell buy sell the same asset for pure PSR upside 

[astraguy]

Can someone explain how villa are now fine if they only sold the women's team for less then the 200m lose? I still make them 150 short 

[Boey_Jarton]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Non footballing purchases don’t count towards PSR.  But the sales do.  
 

In theory you can buy sell buy sell the same asset for pure PSR upside 

This is not true or at least misleading.

 

Whilst the purchase cost of 'non-footballing' expenditure (e.g.  infrastructure capex) is likely to be an allowable PSR expense (i.e. it does not count towards PSR losses), the subsequent sale of the non-footballing asset would only trigger a PSR profit to the extent that the sale price exceeded the book value on the balance sheet. 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

This is not true or at least misleading.

 

Whilst the purchase cost of 'non-footballing' expenditure (e.g.  infrastructure capex) is likely to be an allowable PSR expense (i.e. it does not count towards PSR losses), the subsequent sale of the non-footballing asset would only trigger a PSR profit to the extent that the sale price exceeded the book value on the balance sheet. 

 

 

I’m not a football accountant but that’s not my understanding of the rules. 
 

The sale would simply be additional revenue to my understanding.  
 

Happy to be proven wrong.  

[Boey_Jarton]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I’m not a football accountant but that’s not my understanding of the rules. 
 

The sale would simply be additional revenue to my understanding.  
 

Happy to be proven wrong.  

It's correct. The profit on sale of a fixed asset must consider the book value of the asset (cost less depreciation). 

 

In the case of Chelsea selling their hotels, the book value of these assets would have been minimal because they were acquired decades ago and would likely have been fully depreciated whilst property values have increased. 

 

Similarly, in the case of women's football teams, the book value of these assets is likely to be very low, as the 'asset' and associated 'goodwill' has been developed internally and unlikely to have involved significant capital expenditure. 

[Famous Nick]

its very clear Masters and his cartel being shit scared resulted in these horrible rules. wonder how football survived with no limit on spending since 1900 until round 2010.  because cllarly it was always about rich benefactors around various clubs happy to lose a lot of money but build a strong team. I started to watch football second half of 90s, who were the biggest sides mostly Italians and Moratti, Berlusconi, Agnelli families were losing shit load of money but had great sides. even likes of Parma, Lazio had sugar daddies and had incredible squads. under FFP regime none of that would have been available.

 

football was never about profit, or strict financial checks. it still isnt if you ok at the selected few spending this summer. its about status quo ad no one should dare to trouble Arsenal, ManUtd, Chelsea, Liverpool regularly getting CL places.

[Dokko]

20 minutes ago, Famous Nick said:

its very clear Masters and his cartel being shit scared resulted in these horrible rules. wonder how football survived with no limit on spending since 1900 until round 2010.  because cllarly it was always about rich benefactors around various clubs happy to lose a lot of money but build a strong team. I started to watch football second half of 90s, who were the biggest sides mostly Italians and Moratti, Berlusconi, Agnelli families were losing shit load of money but had great sides. even likes of Parma, Lazio had sugar daddies and had incredible squads. under FFP regime none of that would have been available.

 

football was never about profit, or strict financial checks. it still isnt if you ok at the selected few spending this summer. its about status quo ad no one should dare to trouble Arsenal, ManUtd, Chelsea, Liverpool regularly getting CL places.

 

As soon as the Yanks dominated club ownership. They couldn't remove relegation and do drafts, so financial strangulation is the next best thing.

[The Prophet]

As far as PIF are concerned, we're an investment, an investment that's providing returns and still has plenty of room to grow.

 

While that potential for growth exists, I doubt we'll see PIF put any pressure on the club to do anything outside of the box. It doesn't really need to.