The Prophet Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 52 minutes ago, Gaztoon said: Whats different apart from scale from Ashley using sports direct as sponsor and setting the size of the sponsorship fee and City owners using a company to do the same ? Quite big. Man City is in part, accused of using sponsorship to inflate revenue and funnel money into the club. Newcastle used sponsorship to increase the revenue of its owner's business and increase his wealth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christ Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 I don’t really think this has any major implications for us, unless it ends up with FFP being torpedoed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 (edited) You're allowed to exploit a club, run it into the ground or mortgage it to buy it, never paying it off....but if you show any form of ambition and challenge the elite then you're in trouble. FFP needs to go. More needs to be done with lower clubs and their running costs. Teams with money should be allowed to spend what they like as long as it's not the club picking up the bill. So an owner can spend what the fuck they like, but when they are done any outstanding debt is theirs and not the club. Or, you can only go over a certain wage to turnover ratio, but can spend what you like to move forward. The idea should be to protect the club against not being able to afford over stretched ambitions, but it doesn't do that, it actually allows for crooks and chances to come in and service their debts whilst removing any hope for the fans to get a leg up and dream of something better. I hope citeh smash it to bits. It's a cartel masquerading as a governing body. Fuck em. Edited February 7, 2023 by Dokko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 7 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Quite big. Man City is in part, accused of using sponsorship to inflate revenue and funnel money into the club. Newcastle used sponsorship to increase the revenue of its owner's business and increase his wealth. This always winds me up. The governing bodies put all these road blocks in place to ensure what they would call 'sporting integrity' but is actually there mainly to ensure 'historic' clubs who may not normally be able to keep up don't get left in the dust. Yet they have no issue at all with a guy buying a club to essentially turn it in a giant advertising billboard for his own business, paying vastly under market value for the space. Don't get me wrong, I think FFP should absolutely be a thing in one form or another, but it should be there to ultimately ensure that clubs are run in a sustainable way. The test should be, if the owners were to walk away from the club tomorrow, could it survive without immediate huge disruption. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWMag Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Gaztoon said: Whats different apart from scale from Ashley using sports direct as sponsor and setting the size of the sponsorship fee and City owners using a company to do the same ? Sports direct would have been recorded as a related party transaction, there’s no trying to hide that this money came from Ashley. what City have done is find none related companies, giving those companies the money via the Abu Dhabi group, those companies have then given this money to Man City as though it was there own and it does not get recorded as a related party transaction, so a big difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 23 minutes ago, Dokko said: You're allowed to exploit a club, run it into the ground or mortgage it to buy it, never paying it off....but if you show any form of ambition and challenge the elite then you're in trouble. FFP needs to go. More needs to be done with lower clubs and their running costs. Teams with money should be allowed to spend what they like as long as it's not the club picking up the bill. So an owner can spend what the fuck they like, but when they are done any outstanding debt is theirs and not the club. Or, you can only go over a certain wage to turnover ratio, but can spend what you like to move forward. The idea should be to protect the club against not being able to afford over stretched ambitions, but it doesn't do that, it actually allows for crooks and chances to come in and service their debts whilst removing any hope for the fans to get a leg up and dream of something better. I hope citeh smash it to bits. It's a cartel masquerading as a governing body. Fuck em. Yep. It's bollocks. Makes me want them to pip Arsenal to the title even more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 3 minutes ago, NWMag said: Sports direct would have been recorded as a related party transaction, there’s no trying to hide that this money came from Ashley. what City have done is find none related companies, giving those companies the money via the Abu Dhabi group, those companies have then given this money to Man City as though it was there own and it does not get recorded as a related party transaction, so a big difference. Cheers mate Understand it now.. so it should be OK if a pif company sponsors us aslong as its clear the money comes from that company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 (edited) 18 minutes ago, sushimonster85 said: This always winds me up. The governing bodies put all these road blocks in place to ensure what they would call 'sporting integrity' but is actually there mainly to ensure 'historic' clubs who may not normally be able to keep up don't get left in the dust. Yet they have no issue at all with a guy buying a club to essentially turn it in a giant advertising billboard for his own business, paying vastly under market value for the space. Don't get me wrong, I think FFP should absolutely be a thing in one form or another, but it should be there to ultimately ensure that clubs are run in a sustainable way. The test should be, if the owners were to walk away from the club tomorrow, could it survive without immediate huge disruption. I argued that case a few times. At least twice when 7th-10th at the halfway point we all but took the second half of the season off. Only jerking into life when it nearly caught us out with a relegation. One year we played Burnley twice before halfway but their relegation competitors got to play a not arsed team and club in the second half which was played effectively without even having a manager. Complacency might be argued but this was desired by the then regime. Edited February 7, 2023 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Wasn't this related party sponsorship thing just introduced when PIF bought us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 29 minutes ago, Dokko said: You're allowed to exploit a club, run it into the ground or mortgage it to buy it, never paying it off....but if you show any form of ambition and challenge the elite then you're in trouble. FFP needs to go. More needs to be done with lower clubs and their running costs. Teams with money should be allowed to spend what they like as long as it's not the club picking up the bill. So an owner can spend what the fuck they like, but when they are done any outstanding debt is theirs and not the club. Or, you can only go over a certain wage to turnover ratio, but can spend what you like to move forward. The idea should be to protect the club against not being able to afford over stretched ambitions, but it doesn't do that, it actually allows for crooks and chances to come in and service their debts whilst removing any hope for the fans to get a leg up and dream of something better. I hope citeh smash it to bits. It's a cartel masquerading as a governing body. Fuck em. I really disagree with this. FFP is not a perfect system, because as you say the clubs that naturally generate the most income (eg Man U, Liverpool) have the potential to maintain their position through their success breeding more success. But if FFP is not there, then you get the situation that has been developing for several seasons now, where one club can consistently spend whatever it takes to remain at the top, through effectively operating within no budget at all. The competition doesn't increase without FFP, it shrinks. The gap between Man City and the rest has grown over the last few years. There was concern a few years ago about the power of Man U and Arsenal, but once Fergie was gone and Arsenal were saddled with the cost of their new stadium, things naturally evened out. What's more, now that even smaller Premiership clubs like Brighton can attract top talent from all over the world, it's easier for more clubs to challenge the elite. Clubs like West Ham, Villa and ourselves, can now compete with all but the very biggest of European clubs when it comes to attracting players. We'll have to see how things develop, but I can envisage the Premiership becoming more competitive, not less. Providing that clubs like Man City and Chelsea are made to follow the rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 14 minutes ago, Cronky said: I really disagree with this. FFP is not a perfect system, because as you say the clubs that naturally generate the most income (eg Man U, Liverpool) have the potential to maintain their position through their success breeding more success. But if FFP is not there, then you get the situation that has been developing for several seasons now, where one club can consistently spend whatever it takes to remain at the top, through effectively operating within no budget at all. The competition doesn't increase without FFP, it shrinks. The gap between Man City and the rest has grown over the last few years. There was concern a few years ago about the power of Man U and Arsenal, but once Fergie was gone and Arsenal were saddled with the cost of their new stadium, things naturally evened out. What's more, now that even smaller Premiership clubs like Brighton can attract top talent from all over the world, it's easier for more clubs to challenge the elite. Clubs like West Ham, Villa and ourselves, can now compete with all but the very biggest of European clubs when it comes to attracting players. We'll have to see how things develop, but I can envisage the Premiership becoming more competitive, not less. Providing that clubs like Man City and Chelsea are made to follow the rules. Clubs aren't challenging the elite though, not on a consistent basis anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 What of the other teams in the City Group? The must ultimately have either benefited from or faciliated this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 14 minutes ago, Cronky said: What's more, now that even smaller Premiership clubs like Brighton can attract top talent from all over the world, it's easier for more clubs to challenge the elite. Clubs like West Ham, Villa and ourselves, can now compete with all but the very biggest of European clubs when it comes to attracting players. This is very true. You see journos saying it all the time, but ESL never went away, it already exists, and it's the Premier League. We now live in a time where we hear of a Premier League side in the bottom 3 splashing out 50/60m in a transfer window, and don't thing much of it. When actually that's more than the combined spend of a lot other leagues in Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 minute ago, The Prophet said: Clubs aren't challenging the elite though, not on a consistent basis anyway. Take the Chelsea and Man City takeover out and we've Arsenal and Man United carving up 95% of the league for the last 30years. There's a virtue at least in preventing that. Could even argue Liverpool and Leicester would never have got a look in had Chelsea and Man City not broken up Man United and Arsenal's stranglehold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bonk Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: of course. Fuck them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nobody said: Wasn't this related party sponsorship thing just introduced when PIF bought us? Not exactly, it's always been in the FFP rules that the PL could adjust related party transactions to fair market value in the FFP calculation when that is submitted each year, the new rules just require all sponsorship deals etc. over a certain value to be reported to and agreed by the PL so they can make that assessment before they are entered into. Edited February 7, 2023 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 7 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Fucking Chelsea ???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 minute ago, Wolfcastle said: Take the Chelsea and Man City takeover out and we've Arsenal and Man United carving up 95% of the league for the last 30years. There's a virtue at least in preventing that. Could even argue Liverpool and Leicester would never have got a look in had Chelsea and Man City not broken up Man United and Arsenal's stranglehold "The big six" dominate because of their financial might. They have by quite a considerable distance, the biggest revenues and can therefore afford the best players. Spurs wouldn't even be in the conversation if they didn't have financial clout. Man City have taken a stranglehold, but the gap from say City to Liverpool is no where near as it is from Spurs to say Brighton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 11 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Surely as their most direct competitors, that shouldn't come as a great shock. Though wouldn't surprise me at all if the US lobby were banding together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 (edited) The "Top 6" splintering can only be healthy for the Premier League. Edited February 7, 2023 by Skeletor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 6 minutes ago, The Prophet said: "The big six" dominate because of their financial might. They have by quite a considerable distance, the biggest revenues and can therefore afford the best players. Spurs wouldn't even be in the conversation if they didn't have financial clout. Man City have taken a stranglehold, but the gap from say City to Liverpool is no where near as it is from Spurs to say Brighton. We'd have been in that but for Ashley which makes that ownership and the cartel nature since then all the more galling. Spurs were an utter also ran in the Premier League up to that point. Was 5th once the best they'd done? plus a couple relegation battles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnMag Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 24 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Chelsea complaining about City? What a joke Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NWMag Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Gaztoon said: Cheers mate Understand it now.. so it should be OK if a pif company sponsors us aslong as its clear the money comes from that company. Spot on mate yeah, then they have rules now to ensure it’s not an inflated amount I used to think related party transactions was just a football thing but it’s not, I think all UK companies have to disclose any related party transactions in their accounts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted February 7, 2023 Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 hour ago, SUPERTOON said: I read somewhere yesterday the main guy leading the investigation is an Arsenal member ? 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