Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[madras]

10 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

A ‘luxury tax’ is neither use nor ornament if UEFA don’t accept it.  They can place transfer embargoes and European bans on us. 

Not just on us but all the other clubs that would fall foul, which would probably include the current too 7 or 8, the Spanish 2 or 3......see where I'm going ?

[r0cafella]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Is there a link for it?  Not sure how to find it

Google reddit soccer and you can scroll and find. 

[r0cafella]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

A ‘luxury tax’ is neither use nor ornament if UEFA don’t accept it.  They can place transfer embargoes and European bans on us. 

It’s important to remember that Uefa aren’t so draconian when it comes to the punishments for FFP infringements. As I like to point out, let’s bear in mind the year they gave Mbappe the most ridiculous contract in football they were also paying Messi and Suarez. They have lost 600m over the last 3 years yet they are still in the CL and have gotten away with slaps on the wrist. 
 

It’s the premier league going mad with punishments that’s caused everyone to take notice. 

[timeEd32]

36 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

?

 

Never been on r/soccer. It's an abomination. 

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Never been on r/soccer. It's an abomination. 

That’s why it’s great to read in moments such as FFP rules being relaxed.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Abacus said:

Some lovely grizzling on RTG about football is now ruined forever and will become a closed shop.

 

Conveniently forgetting that it already is, and besides that they were bankrolled by Short well above their means for years as well.

 

Now it's state ownership that's the problem, rather than who has the biggest most spendthrift billionaire (foreign or otherwise) as if that makes any difference at all to the argument.

 

Ah well, it's all very sad.

 

In fairness though, no matter who you support, I can't see a good outcome from any set of either restrictive or unrestrictive rules. If anything, there should have always been more rules about owners who actively try to rinse a club instead, as if it was OK to exploit a club instead of putting your money in.

 

The last post is canny tbf. Someone basically saying with the rules, you'd basically have a Man U/Arsenal two horse-race every year.

 

With this, you'll likely still have a 2-3 horse-race but at least everyone can have the dream that they're the ones who get stinking rich and be one of them. 

[FloydianMag]

5 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

A ‘luxury tax’ is neither use nor ornament if UEFA don’t accept it.  They can place transfer embargoes and European bans on us. 

Should there be a need a well placed legal challenge and it wouldn’t matter what UEFA thought. PL, UEFA and FIFA had to back off when they attempted to regulate football agents fees due to a legal ruling in the UK and at a Court in Dortmund on the basis it was anti competitive.

 

I’ve said this many times before, governing bodies should focus on organising competitions and not involve themselves in the commercial activities of clubs as long as those activities are legal and transparent.

 

 

[Scoot]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32eb6707-60d7-4ad8-bb46-fd05d73dcb25?shareToken=9fde931b63b21423cf4f7078c55cc323

 

Think the daily mail guy jumped the gun slightly?

[Nucasol]

10 minutes ago, Scoot said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32eb6707-60d7-4ad8-bb46-fd05d73dcb25?shareToken=9fde931b63b21423cf4f7078c55cc323

 

Think the daily mail guy jumped the gun slightly?

Completely different and much more aligned to the Sinister Six aligned agenda.

[FloydianMag]

42 minutes ago, Scoot said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32eb6707-60d7-4ad8-bb46-fd05d73dcb25?shareToken=9fde931b63b21423cf4f7078c55cc323

 

Think the daily mail guy jumped the gun slightly?

Last paragraph of that article was interesting, there’s clearly a split, could mean that any new rules won’t get the required majority at the PL meeting in June. That article was also written by Ziegler a client journalist of the red cartel.

 

 

Edited April 5 by FloydianMag

[Cronky]

It may help if there is some clarity about punishments in advance - ie an overspend of x automatically leads to a punishment of y.

I think the problem with the current system is that clubs enter into a long process of dispute and the outcome is uncertain and only clear after years, potentially. You then have the issue of clubs who have been adversely affected by a rival's misdemeanours suing them for compensation, when in fact the damage has been done a long time ago. It all ends up in the hands of lawyers rather than the people with responsibility for the game.

Removing these delays and uncertainties may be the best way forward.

[Abacus]

Yes, it's looking more like it's being reported differently and maybe the original article was what some clubs were expecting/ hoping rather than what's been agreed. We'll see, including how this is linked to the anchoring proposals - i.e. a fixed limit on salaries compared to the bottom clubs, which has problems of it's own.

 

A clearer explanation of the rules and exact penalties, maybe a lifting of the £105m loss limit wouldn't be the end of the world IF there's a loosening of the related parties rules.

 

The main problem I can see is that a fixed set of points penalties could equally lead to gaming of the system. Happy to take a 4 point penalty to allow an overspend? Then how many clubs would take that option deliberately, and how much of the league table would be dotted with an asterisk?

 

 

Edited April 5 by Abacus

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Should there be a need a well placed legal challenge and it wouldn’t matter what UEFA thought. PL, UEFA and FIFA had to back off when they attempted to regulate football agents fees due to a legal ruling in the UK and at a Court in Dortmund on the basis it was anti competitive.

 

I’ve said this many times before, governing bodies should focus on organising competitions and not involve themselves in the commercial activities of clubs as long as those activities are legal and transparent.

 

 

I take your points - and I know you're knowledgeable on this subject - though I will say that governing bodies involving themselves in the commercial activities of clubs since the first decade of the game's formation (Blackburn Olympic's payments to players).

 

This doesn't at all mean that you're not correct in what you're saying - just that it is as old as the game itself  

[Nucasol]

2 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Last paragraph of that article was interesting, there’s clearly a split, could mean that any new rules won’t get the required majority at the PL meeting in June. That article was also written by Ziegler a client journalist of the red cartel.

 

 

 

Spot on. He’s happily fluffing and servicing his contacts for a sniff of an exclusive.

[FloydianMag]

14 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I take your points - and I know you're knowledgeable on this subject - though I will say that governing bodies involving themselves in the commercial activities of clubs since the first decade of the game's formation (Blackburn Olympic's payments to players).

 

This doesn't at all mean that you're not correct in what you're saying - just that it is as old as the game itself  

I agree it has, however back then in the 19thC  they didn’t have well established competition laws or judicial bodies like CAT to pass legal rulings. I’d also add that the game has become a multi billion £ industry, all PL Clubs are registered at Companies House and are not exempt from laws that govern businesses in the UK or the EU for that matter.

[The College Dropout]

Aligning more with UEFA should mean less draconian penalties for falling foul.

[r0cafella]

22 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Aligning more with UEFA should mean less draconian penalties for falling foul.

The premier league want to adopt the metrics not the punishments. It’s clear all of this stuff is up in the air so let’s see how it turn out. 

[The College Dropout]

27 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

The premier league want to adopt the metrics not the punishments. It’s clear all of this stuff is up in the air so let’s see how it turn out. 

That's a bit stupid - no?

 

UEFa have harsher laws but more lenient punishment. There's a trade-off there. Adopting the harsher laws but keeping the harsher punishment doesn't make any sense.

[r0cafella]

21 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

That's a bit stupid - no?

 

UEFa have harsher laws but more lenient punishment. There's a trade-off there. Adopting the harsher laws but keeping the harsher punishment doesn't make any sense.

Of course it is, but such is life. 

 

We are getting conflicting reports about the future direction so we will have to wait for more news.

[FLUMPO235]

Oh well, it was nice to go to sleep with tentative hope.

 

looks like we’re back to being the guy who wins the lottery but can’t find his bank card. 

[Turnbull2000]

3 minutes ago, FLUMPO235 said:

Oh well, it was nice to go to sleep with tentative hope.

 

looks like we’re back to being the guy who wins the lottery but can’t find his bank card. 

 

More like win millions on the lottery - can only withdraw 50 quid a week.

[timeEd32]

8 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

More like win millions on the lottery - can only withdraw 50 quid a week.

 

Except you never know exactly what your weekly allowance is and the overdraft penalty is only decided after the fact.

[Dr Venkman]

Don’t understand the desire for a morally pure ascent to the top. Actually, I do. I just think it’s pie in the sky. We’ve sat and watched Chelsea and Man City buy their way to the top, having a great time doing it and then settling as ‘big clubs’ regularly winning things. Let’s just do that? Enough of this soft cock nonsense, spend a fortune and steam roller everyone for a few years, it would be absolutely mint.

 

 

Edited April 5 by Dr Venkman

[TRon]

14 hours ago, Dr Venkman said:

Don’t understand the desire for a morally pure ascent to the top. Actually, I do. I just think it’s pie in the sky. We’ve sat and watched Chelsea and Man City buy their way to the top, having a great time doing it and then settling as ‘big clubs’ regularly winning things. Let’s just do that? Enough of this soft cock nonsense, spend a fortune and steam roller everyone for a few years, it would be absolutely mint.

 

 

 

 

 

It's bollocks basically. I could understand if everyone was starting on the same page, but since some of the biggest clubs have basically built their brand over the last 20 years by spending ludicrous amounts, the rest are already miles behind, and only an avalanche of spending would allow other clubs to get on a level playing field. There's nothing moral about having to sell our best players to these same cartel clubs who have caused this situation in the first place.

[BrianSwan]

On 05/04/2024 at 00:46, TheBrownBottle said:

A ‘luxury tax’ is neither use nor ornament if UEFA don’t accept it.  They can place transfer embargoes and European bans on us. 

and?

 

Newcastle can just compete in the Premier Leaguethen. Europe isn't needed.