r0cafella Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 The actually funniest thing about this is the media reporting about how cheap wage wise these signings were, wage bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 If infrastructure spending doesn't count negatively towards ffp, but selling buildings does count positively, can the PIF sell a bunch of buildings to the club and then buy them back? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 22 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said: If infrastructure spending doesn't count negatively towards ffp, but selling buildings does count positively, can the PIF sell a bunch of buildings to the club and then buy them back? At the moment, yes. But they’d still be subject to fair market valuations. So you couldn’t sell Benton Park for £1bn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ben said: I still think there should be a worldwide cap on player salaries, by the look of everyone's accounts wages have spiralled out of control, if the target is financial fair play then its obvious club owners can't run their clubs properly, put real measures in place so they can't overspend, everyone would be better off. Salary caps are a terrible idea, the money's still in the system it just gets funnelled to people like Mike Ashley instead. Said it before and will say it again, football is one of the few industries where the people who create the wealth are compensated for it fairly. It's the rest of us mugs who are being ripped off. Edited April 13 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said: Salary caps are a terrible idea, the money's still in the system it just gets funnelled to people like Mike Ashley instead. The money isn’t in the system, which is the problem. Most football clubs lose money - and the % of turnover quota should be limiting wages and agents fees Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: At the moment, yes. But they’d still be subject to fair market valuations. So you couldn’t sell Benton Park for £1bn. But the PIF could sell us a property at fair market value, and then sell it back to themselves at fair market value. If it only counts to FFP one way then we'd still profit from it on FFP terms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 minute ago, healthyaddiction said: But the PIF could sell us a property at fair market value, and then sell it back to themselves at fair market value. If it only counts to FFP one way then we'd still profit from it on FFP terms. Yep. And while they’d quickly plug that loophole, at present there’s nowt stopping us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 30 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: The money isn’t in the system, which is the problem. Most football clubs lose money - and the % of turnover quota should be limiting wages and agents fees The money is in the system, profit and loss doesn't begin and end with clubs and there's plenty of profit being made from 'the product' that players are providing elsewhere before it even gets to the clubs. Even if I agreed with you, salary caps wouldn't be the solution. Look at U.S sports and the ways in which it's used as a way to exploit athletes and profiteer from what they are doing. Edited April 13 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 23 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: Salary caps are a terrible idea, the money's still in the system it just gets funnelled to people like Mike Ashley instead. Said it before and will say it again, football is one of the few industries where the people who create the wealth are compensated for it fairly. It's the rest of us mugs who are being ripped off. But when you look at the balance sheets of all clubs they are obviously spending to much on wages, ffp is supposed to protect the clubs from themselves IMO a salary cap would be a better way to do that, I'm not saying we pay them minimum wage but a cap would allow for better control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 26 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: At the moment, yes. But they’d still be subject to fair market valuations. So you couldn’t sell Benton Park for £1bn. Ok so we'll sell for 1.5m and buy it back for 1.4m. both could be 'fair', then just repeat that 500 times a day. Employ a team of people just to repeatedly process this for as long as we can, day and night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 Selling a hotel to yourself is a whole other level of accounting shenanigans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 18 minutes ago, Ben said: But when you look at the balance sheets of all clubs they are obviously spending to much on wages, ffp is supposed to protect the clubs from themselves IMO a salary cap would be a better way to do that, I'm not saying we pay them minimum wage but a cap would allow for better control. Okay, so let's say a cap comes in, if it's percentage based (eg % of revenue) how doesn't it just become another form of FFP? Teams being forced to sell (to top clubs that can afford it) if they don't hit their cap. If it's a total monetary amount, how does it not just double down on the haves and have nots just as FFP is doing? Teams like Man United having even more money to spend on transfer fees because of what they save on wages and other teams overspending on wages to desperately try to keep up? I get the thinking behind it, but I don't think the proof is in the pudding. These problems still exist in sports with wage caps and in the end the only real effect is moving money away from the people who create the wealth and them being exploited and having no leverage in contract negotiations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) Todays match sponsor was https://highgradehydroponics.co.uk/ I know we need to ‘grow’ commercial revenue but are we really that desperate that this is the best we can do atm? *unless this business is genuine and not a front to help people growing weed Edited April 13 by geordie_b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 6 minutes ago, geordie_b said: Todays match sponsor was https://highgradehydroponics.co.uk/ I know we need to ‘grow’ commercial revenue but are we really that desperate that this is the best we can do atm? *unless this business is genuine and not a front to help people growing weed As long as they're paying the going current rate it doesn't matter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, geordie_b said: Todays match sponsor was https://highgradehydroponics.co.uk/ I know we need to ‘grow’ commercial revenue but are we really that desperate that this is the best we can do atm? *unless this business is genuine and not a front to help people growing weed What’s wrong with helping people grow weed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arknor Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 (edited) Seems you can sell stuff to companies ran by your owners. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13304941/Chelsea-hotels-Premier-League-Profit-Sustainability-Rules.html Quote Chelsea’s financial challenges have been laid bare, with the release of their accounts including the revelation that their owners generated more than £76million after selling both hotels on the Stamford Bridge site to another company they own. Insiders at the London club insist that deal was done within the Premier League’s rules and ran by the competition beforehand, adding that they used two independent valuers to ensure a fair price was agreed. That has not stopped rival supporters from showing their surprise that their losses were allowed to be reduced by the sale of buildings to Blueco 22 Properties Limited, a subsidiary of Blueco 22 Limited. The overall numbers disclosed did little to show that Chelsea will not face a battle to comply with the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability (PSR) rules this summer, with rival clubs believing that they have to sell this summer in order to avoid a breach. June 30 is the deadline by which clubs needing to generate cash will have to beat. Wonder how much strawberry place is worth now its to be used as a night life venue Edited April 14 by Arknor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13304941/Chelsea-hotels-Premier-League-Profit-Sustainability-Rules.html Quote Chelsea’s financial challenges have been laid bare, with the release of their accounts including the revelation that their owners generated more than £76million after selling both hotels on the Stamford Bridge site to another company they own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keggy_Keagal Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere but under current rules what's to stop PIF loaning the club £500 million for example and the club paying it back a pound a season or whatever ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/04/14/clubs-agreed-financial-rules-must-stop-finding-loopholes/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 10 minutes ago, duo said: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13304941/Chelsea-hotels-Premier-League-Profit-Sustainability-Rules.html Related party transaction? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 20 minutes ago, The Prophet said: Related party transaction? It only needs to be assessed for fair market value - which it was. It’s not crazy sums for hotels in London Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 28 minutes ago, Keggy_Keagal said: Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere but under current rules what's to stop PIF loaning the club £500 million for example and the club paying it back a pound a season or whatever ? Nothing at all. But it wouldn’t count towards FFP - which of course what matters. The regs state which income streams are counted in the assessment, and which aren’t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Just posted a Tweet about the "good faith" clause, which was deleted. Could still be in trouble yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Just highlights the farcical nature of the PSR rules - every club just trying to find loop holes to navigate them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mondonewc Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 This is honestly a fucking shambles, the rulemakers are making a mockery of the league, twats! 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