Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Voting for measures which constrains everyone’s spending is a great way to protect yourself from the downside too. 

Yep, you’re right there.  It’s FMV where the biggest problem lies though - the Sky Six deciding what our deals should be worth relative to theirs effectively fixes us in position forever.  

[FloydianMag]

40 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I'll ask the obvious question - why haven't they then? 

 

This has been my position for a while now, with hundreds of millions at stake, now multiple clubs being affected by these rules and yet nobody has even hinted at going down this route. Even Man City are arguing against their charges rather than against the rules the charges are based on.

Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean a challenge won’t happen and as for City if it goes wrong for them they do have that as a nuclear option.

 

26 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Apart from FMV haven’t we voted with all these changes ? I would imagine that wouldn’t help us with any legal challenge, which makes me think at this point we have no intention unfortunately.

 

 

We voted for FFP under Ashley, not sure we would now and sometimes it’s Hobson choice if you don’t comply with rules that are anti competitive you would be sanctioned at at worst expelled, doesn’t mean that you can’t challenge them. 

[Infatuation Junkie]

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean a challenge won’t happen and as for City if it goes wrong for them they do have that as a nuclear option.

 

We voted for FFP under Ashley, not sure we would now and sometimes it’s Hobson choice if you don’t comply with rules that are anti competitive you would be sanctioned at at worst expelled, doesn’t mean that you can’t challenge them. 

We voted for FFP under Ashley because this kind of shit was right up his street. 
 

Amazed he didn’t have his own FFP in place with wages

[FloydianMag]

9 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

We voted for FFP under Ashley because this kind of shit was right up his street. 
 

Amazed he didn’t have his own FFP in place with wages

He did with the majority of non playing staff, national minimum wage and with Charnley wasn’t he the lowest paid executive in the PL. As for players that was a more difficult issue but he still never paid top dollar.

 

Question is should a new regime be subject of rules an old regime signed up to…….but thats another argument.

[Infatuation Junkie]

What blows my mind is that Burnley as an example. Or Brentford. Or Oxford. Can’t be allowed the SAME rights as the big 6.

 

Everyone should be allowed exactly the same price if a sponsor want to pay it. Everyone should be able to pay whatever wages they desire.

 

If a club folds or goes into administration. The onus is on the owner not being cautious enough with his business. This is life. It happens outside of football. So why have these rules that hinder possible progression

[duo]

The rules are never going to change unless they are challenged. It feels these new rules are being brought in just to try and exonerate City. So I really wish we would challenge them in court as football is a business now, big business and the rules are unfair and anti-competitive.

[OpenC]

10 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

 

 

If a club folds or goes into administration. The onus is on the owner not being cautious enough with his business. This is life. It happens outside of football. So why have these rules that hinder possible progression

 

It's so they can hinder possible progression, it's got literally nothing to do with protecting clubs or fans I reckon. Just a gentle little fiction which works as a cover story if you don't look too close.

 

 

Edited March 16 by OpenC

[gbandit]

It feels like football is finally eating itself via the only thing that causes self-cannibalism, capitalism.

 

Strangely though, it’s a form of capitalism that’s somehow managed to attack itself. These few clubs at the very top are so incredibly greedy that they have found a way of stopping capitalism for others and only allowing it for themselves through a constant series of rule changes that are strangling the life out of football. 

 

It’s fucking mental and there’s no doubt that football will lose its audience, and all the money propping it up if it becomes truly anti-competitive. Nationally, it’ll lose popularity very quickly. Internationally, it’ll be slower but it will die off if it’s just the same teams playing the same teams again and again and again. 
 

These next couple of years are pivotal,  if it keeps going the way it’s going it’s going to lose a ton of fans. The implementation of VAR, the corporatisation of football, the cost of going to matches all are killing football for many older fans 

[FloydianMag]

9 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

What blows my mind is that Burnley as an example. Or Brentford. Or Oxford. Can’t be allowed the SAME rights as the big 6.

 

Everyone should be allowed exactly the same price if a sponsor want to pay it. Everyone should be able to pay whatever wages they desire.

 

If a club folds or goes into administration. The onus is on the owner not being cautious enough with his business. This is life. It happens outside of football. So why have these rules that hinder possible progression

Because football thinks it’s ‘special’ but now that football is a multi billion pound industry it isn’t a special as it thinks it is…….why shouldn’t competition law apply to a huge business sector?

[Infatuation Junkie]

24 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Because football thinks it’s ‘special’ but now that football is a multi billion pound industry it isn’t a special as it thinks it is…….why shouldn’t competition law apply to a huge business sector?

There should be competition law. I agree with that. 
 

But on the field only.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

There should be competition law. I agree with that. 
 

But on the field only.

But anti competitive rules around finance and revenue streams impacts the quality of that team on the field.

All the arguments and discussion about FFP, FMV and PSR needs to be tested by a judicial body, CAT, if they are deemed to be fair rules, fine, no problem. To do nothing though and allow a cartel of the richest clubs dictate what you can spend, who and how much companies can sponsor you for and who you can do business with is just so fucking wrong on every level.

[Pokerprince2004]

Looks like Forest and Everton might find out their points deductions on Monday. Wouldn’t be surprised to see them take the Premier League to court. Feels like we need a club brave enough to do it and it might cause a domino effect ?

 

 

[Keegans Export]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean a challenge won’t happen and as for City if it goes wrong for them they do have that as a nuclear option.

Forest are about to get a points deduction that could relegate them. Everton are about to get their second and could suffer the same fate. Man City are spending a fortune fighting 115 charges that would all vanish if the rules themselves were thrown out. Ourselves and Villa (among others) are falling behind every transfer window, FFP/FMV preventing us from catching up. 

 

What do you think they're all waiting for?

[Heron]

Football is so broken man

[Infatuation Junkie]

This is like the 90s when we had jumpers for goalposts on the field.

 

The kid who owned the football was the one to determine the rules.

 

Dont accept the rules. He won’t let you play or he will fuck off home with his football.

[Stifler]

Surely fair market value has to be subjective as well?

 

Let’s say I’m a successful businessman, I’d be willing to pay Newcastle £50m per year in sponsorship, because I believe it could help them buy a player to win us a cup. I’m a Newcastle fan, and to me that’s a reasonable price for me to pay. On top of this, if my hunch comes off, my company will have it’s name on every photo of our trophy win forever, and as much of my business is in Tyneside, that’s basically a lifetime of advertising and good vibes for me.

 

Now the Premier League have told me that I’m not allowed to do that because it’s an inflated fee, however I can pay Liverpool £50m for sponsorship.

I don’t want to pay Liverpool £50m so they can win the cup I want Newcastle too. I don’t have business in Liverpool, so being on the good side of their population means fuck all. By my initial request to pay Newcastle £50m, I’ve actually said I’d pay £50m for Liverpool not to fucking win a cup.

 

Let’s go further, surely fair market value has to be applied across all aspects of the business. How is it ok for Liverpool to get inflated sponsorship, and also to pay their players, manager, and coaching staff more than the market rate?

If you look at it across society, surely they should only be offering NMW as anything above that is classed as inflated?

If you are looking at it across the average of professional football teams, it’s still inflated, across Premier League teams, still inflated, across teams competing in European competition, still inflated.

 

 

Edited March 16 by Stifler

[Colos Short and Curlies]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

Forest are about to get a points deduction that could relegate them. Everton are about to get their second and could suffer the same fate. Man City are spending a fortune fighting 115 charges that would all vanish if the rules themselves were thrown out. Ourselves and Villa (among others) are falling behind every transfer window, FFP/FMV preventing us from catching up. 

 

What do you think they're all waiting for?

Forest and Everton will be waiting for a punishment and then will challenge it.

most challenges to laws come from defending a position or a penalty, it’s much more difficult to take a concept to court.

 

theres probably something under the bonnet of most clubs that isn’t totally on the level so why put your head up until you need to? City in particular will have practices that they don’t want out in public, so they just tie the process up in knots

[Pablo]

It’s (hopefully) almost certainly going to come to a head soon. Ultimately I think we need Forest or Everton relegated on the back of financial breaches, and mass hysteria and uncertainty through the summer with a will they / won’t they circus in the media. 
We need the league to be totally split and up in arms, with threats of boycott. This could drive a hole into the current regime and we can just go along for the ride, without being the focus of attention.

i have no love for Everton or Forest, but I can’t accept that they have done anything worse than the red tops, citeh, Chelsea and spurs or even Leicester. Teams should be promoted and relegated on sporting merit, not on financial results (as long as they pay there creditors and don’t go bankrupt / administration).

[FloydianMag]

2 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

Forest are about to get a points deduction that could relegate them. Everton are about to get their second and could suffer the same fate. Man City are spending a fortune fighting 115 charges that would all vanish if the rules themselves were thrown out. Ourselves and Villa (among others) are falling behind every transfer window, FFP/FMV preventing us from catching up. 

 

What do you think they're all waiting for?

I think they’re waiting for the right opportunity, simple as.

[TRon]

18 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I don't think that would be the case. If we qualify for Europe I expect we could buy at least 1 player without selling.

 

Selling Miggy or Wilson is almost pure FFP profiot

 

I keep hearing how we will get £20m for Tripper, £30m for Miggy, £25m for Longstaff etc, etc. I said none of that would happen in January. It didn't.

 

Now the fees will be less and decreasing with every window, even assuming any of those players are for sale or will be willing to be sold. We do have players who will fetch real big money, but they aren't the ones we want to sell. But I'm not sure how else we generate the funds to narrow the gap with the cartel clubs.

[Matt1892]

Even if the league were to drop financial fair play which we know they won’t, would we still not have the issue with UEFA and FFP when qualifying for Europe?

[FloydianMag]

Is this a way around FFP?

 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

10 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

Even if the league were to drop financial fair play which we know they won’t, would we still not have the issue with UEFA and FFP when qualifying for Europe?

if it’s found to be against competition law in the uk it is bound to also the case in a EU court

[Colos Short and Curlies]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

Is this a way around FFP?

 

https://x.com/david_ornstein/status/1768974255465632203?s=46&t=RaLdCRuzyWBbm603Y3eUgg

I half in jest suggesting that we half all of our player wages but allow them to be ambassadors for pit companies who can pay them whatever they like.

 

would be untouchable by the premier league

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

if it’s found to be against competition law in the uk it is bound to also the case in a EU court

UK and EU competition law almost mirror each other.