Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jack27]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

@Jack27

 

There was this, but it had previously been reported by more credible sources. 

 

I'm sure posted one in this thread. I'll have a look.

 

 

 

football insider 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

All we need is for one slip up from the old six complaining that FFP is anti competition (will be Chelsea) and we sweep in ‘ah yes it is, let’s scrap it’

[Stifler]

7 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Press reports suggests we introduced this and lobbied hardest for it. We're up to something.

Easy.

If the reports of the sponsorships being less regulated is correct, then we’ll end up signing deals that will take us to a level where we will only be hit by these new spending rules, as our 70% ration will be above this cap. At that point we essentially can spend what Man City etc can spend. So if we get hit with a fine, then Man City etc are all coming down with us.

 

On top of this, it in incentivises the big clubs to work for bigger league deals and a more equal sharing of the broadcast/sponsorship income, as the more the worst club earns, the more they can spend. So we’ll end up seeing TV deals where we are just fucking rinsing whoever is paying for them, rather than being happy with Sky, and possibly go back to an equal revenue on the international rights, which is currently skewed in favour of the top 6 clubs.

We might also see some sort of pot set aside for clubs to develop their stadiums to increase their matchday income, that in turn would also prevent the same people from adding infrastructure expenditure to what is no longer deductible.

[Checko]

There's this, football insider again, but also with Kieran Maguire, who is basically the only person on the internet to confidently assert he understands how FFP fucking works.

 

https://www.footballinsider247.com/newcastle-united-budget-to-rocket-under-new-rules-kieran-maguire/

 

"Maguire explained that the rule change would be “excellent” for Newcastle as the current regulations stop them from challenging the established elite.

 

If anchoring rules are introduced to the Premier League, this will be excellent for a club such as Newcastle,” Maguire told Football Insider’s Sean Fisher.

 

"They are very much constrained by the existing PSR rules which are designed to favour the interests of larger clubs.

 

Giving all clubs in the Premier League the same ceiling means that Newcastle can take off the shackles that they presently have and increase spending significantly.

 

However, it has to be kept in mind that Uefa are using a soft salary cap, so therefore any benefits given in terms of the domestic competition will be offset should Newcastle be playing in Europe.“

 

Of course given no-one else understands any of this he could just be blagging it.

 

 

Edited April 29 by Checko

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, Dokko said:

 

All of it is our doing. Said this so many times now. We've been GoT style seed planting and whispering in the background whislt looking compliant and submissive in public. 

 

We've torn them inside out. They've lost control of their own product, and will soon be replaced. 

 

I wondered for a while whether the "legally binding assurances" we gave to the PL before they allowed the takeover could have included some sort of commitment that we would play nice and not legally challenge the FFP rules, and we're trying to nudge other clubs towalds doing that.

 

 

Edited April 29 by Jackie Broon

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

The removal of the related party transactions seems to have come from nowhere, does this mean Man City would be let off their 115 charges

No. 
 

city are accused of outright fraud. Not dodgy football account. Fraudulent accounting. Criminal offences. 

[nufcjb]

16 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Press reports suggests we introduced this and lobbied hardest for it. We're up to something.

[The College Dropout]

Anchoring is good for the league.  
 

It doesn’t help us tremendously because the uefa laws have a revenue based cap. 
 

What’s interesting is - do uefa have a third party related fair price thing? Because anchoring essentially makes that third party stuff irrelevant in the PL

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

No. 
 

city are accused of outright fraud. Not dodgy football account. Fraudulent accounting. Criminal offences. 

 

I don't think that's true, they haven't been charged with criminal offences, only breaching the PL's rules.

[Dokko]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I wondered for a while whether the "legally binding assurances" we gave to the PL before they allowed the takeover could have included some sort of commitment that we would play nice and not legally challenge the FFP rules, and we're trying to nudged other clubs towalds doing that.

 

There's a reason the PL spend 18months keeping this lot out and throwing every possible hurdle at us regardless whether it hurt other clubs, the brand or the league itself. 

 

There's been a proxy war going on for 3 years, the last 18months it's been in the PL backyard and they know they've lost. Only a matter of time.

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, Checko said:

There's this, football insider again, but also with Kieran Maguire, who is basically the only person on the internet to confidently assert he understands how FFP fucking works.

 

https://www.footballinsider247.com/newcastle-united-budget-to-rocket-under-new-rules-kieran-maguire/

 

"Maguire explained that the rule change would be “excellent” for Newcastle as the current regulations stop them from challenging the established elite.

 

If anchoring rules are introduced to the Premier League, this will be excellent for a club such as Newcastle,” Maguire told Football Insider’s Sean Fisher.

 

"They are very much constrained by the existing PSR rules which are designed to favour the interests of larger clubs.

 

Giving all clubs in the Premier League the same ceiling means that Newcastle can take off the shackles that they presently have and increase spending significantly.

 

However, it has to be kept in mind that Uefa are using a soft salary cap, so therefore any benefits given in terms of the domestic competition will be offset should Newcastle be playing in Europe.“

 

Of course given no-one else understands any of this he could just be blagging it.

 

 

 

 

I think this was when he thought it was going to replace the existing rules, rather than run alongside them. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29 by Kid Icarus

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't think that's true, they haven't been charged with criminal offences, only breaching the PL's rules.

I believe they are accused of claiming income came from source A, when it actually came from source B/An individual. 
 

Technically that is fraud.  HMRC not caring doesn’t get City off the hook. And they still broke the rules that existed at the time which gave them an h fair advantage of those that did. And they did it to cheat. 

[et tu brute]

11 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Anchoring is good for the league.  
 

It doesn’t help us tremendously because the uefa laws have a revenue based cap. 
 

What’s interesting is - do uefa have a third party related fair price thing? Because anchoring essentially makes that third party stuff irrelevant in the PL

It does help us, in that we can certainly increase revenue to enable increased spending. Roll on the summer new sponsorship/commercial deals.

 

 

Edited April 29 by et tu brute

[Scoot]

Just now, et tu brute said:

It does help us that we can certainly increase revenue to enable increased spending. Roll on the summer new sponsorship/commercial deals.

 

Bit aren't there still rules in place in regards to Related Party Sponsorship? 

[timeEd32]

The speculation around this is slowly killing me. I just want to fast forward to when we know what the actual rules are.

[The College Dropout]

Just now, et tu brute said:

It does help us that we can certainly increase revenue to enable increased spending. Roll on the summer new sponsorship/commercial deals.

Our own revenue doesn’t impact our spending cap based on this rule though.  For the PL anyway. 
 

Or does it spell the end fOR FMV? Does UEFA have their own FMV?

[Wolfcastle]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

As long as they can get ahead far enough not to be threatened beyond the odd season or two of freak results, I doubt they'll lose any sleep over it. Just seems like a token pretence of fair play without actually roping the cartel clubs in any meaningful way.

Exactly. They're not bothered about widening the gap if those behind them are hobbled. Its about maintaining the gap.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I believe they are accused of claiming income came from source A, when it actually came from source B/An individual. 
 

Technically that is fraud.  HMRC not caring doesn’t get City off the hook. And they still broke the rules that existed at the time which gave them an h fair advantage of those that did. And they did it to cheat. 

To be more specific I think City are accused of paying staff backhanders and off the books. And accused of claiming sponsorship money came from Fly Emirates or someone. When it came directly from the Sheikh or whatever

[cubaricho]

22 minutes ago, NG32 said:

it. 

Niche. I like it.  

[Jackie Broon]

@The College Dropout I'm not sure I'd go round making accusations of fraud on a public forum. Man City and the indaviduals involved haven't been charged with any criminal offence, there's no suggestion that there is any criminal investigation, the only accusations relate to breaching the PL's rules.

[Wolfcastle]

Tell you what it is mind, its boring as fuck and I'm glad I lived through normal transfer windows with romance instead of this turgid dreck

 

 

Edited April 29 by Wolfcastle

[et tu brute]

5 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Bit aren't there still rules in place in regards to Related Party Sponsorship? 

Currently, we still were able to use the likes of Sela though. I'm pretty sure there will be increased sponsorship deals this summer. 

[midds]

I think the fact only 3/20 teams actively dislike this new introduction is really encouraging for us and others. It suggests that many clubs are massively pissed off with the FFP/PSR rules as they currently stand and they need complete overhaul, not only do many reject FFP but they're now willing to oppose the big 6 and openly vote against them. In the past they've always just gone with them and most new rules have passed virtually unchallenged, the vote today implies that the worm has well and truly turned and there's appetite for huge changes and the PL can't say they never saw it coming. The way they've handled the FFP breaches at Everton, Forest and City have been a shambles.

 

This is just the start of the small 14 pushing back and rejecting what is being pushed upon them 

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

@The College Dropout I'm not sure I'd go round making accusations of fraud on a public forum. Man City and the indaviduals involved haven't been charged with any criminal offence, there's no suggestion that there is any criminal investigation, the only accusations relate to breaching the PL's rules.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-ffp-fraud-news-premier-league-b2279693.html

 

This is tantamount to fraud, no?

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Our own revenue doesn’t impact our spending cap based on this rule though.  For the PL anyway. 
 

Or does it spell the end fOR FMV? Does UEFA have their own FMV?

It does until we reach the 5 x lowest premier league club level though. We're currently at 250 million. If it's running alongside the 85 or 70% rule, then it does still impact the spending. This allows us to close the gap quicker, whilst the 'big 5' can't increase their levels of spending.