duo Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 7 hours ago, FloydianMag said: Still doesn't get round UEFA rules so pointless Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, duo said: Still doesn't get round UEFA rules so pointless It brings it in mine with UEFA rules doesn't it? It's exactly how UEFA breaches work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 Probably helps us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 No chance it gets voted in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 Just now, Ronson333 said: Probably helps us I can see what happens now. We fall foul of the rules: ‘Newcastle United have agreed to a 3 point deduction and a January window transfer embargo’. Man Utd fall foul of the rule: ‘Man Ut have agreed a 2 day suspended £100k fine’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc123 Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 What a mess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 The complicated mess they've made of this just to avoid the possibility of the cartel being usurped and actual fairness (universal spend limit) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 17 Share Posted May 17 19 hours ago, duo said: Still doesn't get round UEFA rules so pointless It's exactly the same punishment tho... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 If we are getting rid of the independent commission then the whole FFP needs to go, whats the point of it if its not enforced effectively and fairly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 On 16/05/2026 at 20:43, duo said: Still doesn't get round UEFA rules so pointless The UEFA rules are also pay to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted May 18 Share Posted May 18 22 hours ago, nufc123 said: What a mess Screwing the credibility of English football to prevent NUFC investing in players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT24 Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 Apparently we’ve both agreed and are close to agreeing a fine with UEFA. Which is it, Mark? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 9 minutes ago, JT24 said: Apparently we’ve both agreed and are close to agreeing a fine with UEFA. Which is it, Mark? It'll be the latter - I think it's commonplace for the writer of the article to not have written the headline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 Apparently we have to agree to other conditions too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teslact Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 Can't be upsetting the ESL cartel apple cabbage cart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 On 16/05/2026 at 13:37, FloydianMag said: So you've spent too much? Ok spend more paying us and we'll let you off....then you can pay us again when our fee means you've spent too much again. Absolute racket Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viana Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 The rules are beyond stupid. You can't try to force parity at this late stage in the game. Not when someone like Chelsea has racked up a billion's worth of losses under Abramovich. If anything, these rules force teams into more bad financial decisions trying to balance the books alongside staying competitive. Selling yourself a hotel or a women's team isn't a sign of financial stability. It's the equivalent of running to Cash Converters. Now they're trying to instigate what is for all intents and purposes a luxury tax. And through all of this, it's not like we've cured clubs fucking up their finances. Whether it's West Ham, Leicester, whoever, they're all still having to frantically course correct after one bad season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 1 hour ago, Viana said: The rules are beyond stupid. You can't try to force parity at this late stage in the game. Not when someone like Chelsea has racked up a billion's worth of losses under Abramovich. If anything, these rules force teams into more bad financial decisions trying to balance the books alongside staying competitive. Selling yourself a hotel or a women's team isn't a sign of financial stability. It's the equivalent of running to Cash Converters. Now they're trying to instigate what is for all intents and purposes a luxury tax. And through all of this, it's not like we've cured clubs fucking up their finances. Whether it's West Ham, Leicester, whoever, they're all still having to frantically course correct after one bad season. Parity isn't even attempting to be forced unfortunately, it's just a tilt of deck nothing less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 ... still don't see how teams like Man Utd can be allowed to 'carry' a £650m debt but still be able to spend pretty much what they like. How is that playing fair financially or allegedly 'protecting' the club's financial interests? Meanwhile, we don't have any significant debts and owners who could pull £650m out of their pocket change, but aren't allowed to spend to bring our team up to a similar level. Fucking corrupt bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 What PSR has ultimately led to… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 2 hours ago, Armchair Pundit said: ... still don't see how teams like Man Utd can be allowed to 'carry' a £650m debt but still be able to spend pretty much what they like. How is that playing fair financially or allegedly 'protecting' the club's financial interests? Meanwhile, we don't have any significant debts and owners who could pull £650m out of their pocket change, but aren't allowed to spend to bring our team up to a similar level. Fucking corrupt bollocks. You would rather see fans of a club punished for undergoing a leveraged buyout that they had no control over? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffs Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 4 minutes ago, Froggy said: You would rather see fans of a club punished for undergoing a leveraged buyout that they had no control over? nope - i'd rather that some clubs weren't artificially constrained from competing, while others aren't Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Froggy said: You would rather see fans of a club punished for undergoing a leveraged buyout that they had no control over? I’m not being funny but the Glazers first bought a share in 2003, then bought the club in 2005. You can’t expect for the balance of a loan at £650m to be still at that level 21 years later. To put it into perspective Arsenal spent the same on their stadium a year later and have paid that off. How long do you want to pay it off? It’s already been 21 years. Alongside that though it is a valid question why high levels of debt is classed as fair game, but ownership investment isn’t? Edited May 27 by Stifler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 47 minutes ago, Stifler said: I’m not being funny but the Glazers first bought a share in 2003, then bought the club in 2005. You can’t expect for the balance of a loan at £650m to be still at that level 21 years later. To put it into perspective Arsenal spent the same on their stadium a year later and have paid that off. How long do you want to pay it off? It’s already been 21 years. Alongside that though it is a valid question why high levels of debt is classed as fair game, but ownership investment isn’t? If the loan amount is the same as when they bought the club in 2005, it is naturally less now due to inflation. £650m in 2005 is the equivalent to ~$1.26bn today. If the club can afford to service the loan then why not? I would think by paying parts of it off over the years would save them a lot of money in interests in the long term but as long as they can afford it without bankrupting the club then they should be allowed to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki679 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 9 hours ago, Conjo said: If the loan amount is the same as when they bought the club in 2005, it is naturally less now due to inflation. £650m in 2005 is the equivalent to ~$1.26bn today. If the club can afford to service the loan then why not? I would think by paying parts of it off over the years would save them a lot of money in interests in the long term but as long as they can afford it without bankrupting the club then they should be allowed to do so. So if the owners can afford to spend without bankrupting the club they should be allowed to? I agree completely. 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