Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Mattoon

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Adam said:

How far does the related party stuff go? Lets say PIF bought Adidas, would our sponsorship deal with them then be limited or scrutinised more?

Yup. Scrutinised more, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the “related sponsor” thing relax because of this? Sorry if I’ve missed it and the reasons for it. I just don’t see them changing it. 

 

 

Edited by Ikon

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ikon said:

Why would the “related sponsor” thing relax because of this? Sorry if I’ve missed it and the reasons for it. I just don’t see them changing it. 

 

 

 

The idea seems to be that a ceiling has been created which means a team cant just spend a billion quid in a season, so related party rules can be relaxed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, simonsays said:

The idea seems to be that a ceiling has been created which means a team cant just spend a billion quid in a season, so related party rules can be relaxed.


Ok got it. So it’s just speculation then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ikon said:


Ok got it. So it’s just speculation then? 

Yep and even then any rule changes to relax it would need 14 votes. Could never see it being changed now it’s implemented 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

Yep and even then any rule changes to relax it would need 14 votes. Could never see it being changed now it’s implemented 

 

With multi-club ownership more prevalent than ever, I think it's a matter of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Staying positive as I can’t see the club voting for it if it makes us worse off.

Has the club voted against of these measures to change FFP/PSR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Staying positive as I can’t see the club voting for it if it makes us worse off.

 

It wouldn't make us worse off. It'll only make certain clubs slightly worse off. It's pretty meaningless though. 

 

 

Edited by Shearergol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

Staying positive as I can’t see the club voting for it if it makes us worse off.

I can sort of see the appeal. Although it doesn't allow us to increase our spending, it theoretically puts a cap on the highest earning clubs so they can't outspend us by that much.

 

The key thing for us going forwards is the related party stuff. That's what's making it so hard to substantially increase our turnover and that's what's limiting what we can spend under the current (and proposed) rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

With multi-club ownership more prevalent than ever, I think it's a matter of time.

I hope you’re right Prophet

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

Yep and even then any rule changes to relax it would need 14 votes. Could never see it being changed now it’s implemented 

 

No one expected today's vote to gain enough support, but it did...

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

No one expected today's vote to gain enough support, but it did...


I didn’t expect it either, but that’s because I thought it would make more of a difference. The %/turnover halts it. Only thing it would do is to halt the top revenue earners a bit, but not much. Always something I guess… 

 

 

Edited by Ikon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Europe off this year. Spend £250m in the summer. Pull back the season after and see which rules apply. They are making it up as they go along. Clear no one has an idea what to do and any changes could easily be challenged as a restriction of trade, so get in while we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Which, in turn, gives us a bargaining chip of sorts.

 

Think I read something that these rules on multiples are, magically, exactly about the amount Man City currently overspend compared to the bottom club now.

 

Be funny if an absolutely potless club gets promoted in future, maths fans.

 

I think it's based the money the bottom club gets from the PL, rather than the total revenue of the bottom club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They really should have had this anchoring thing in place years ago and without the revenue percentage cap. That way all teams could’ve spent the same amount of money, creating more of a level playing field. Obviously you’d want some sort of owner backed assurance tied to it so clubs don’t overspend what they can afford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm reading, at the moment this is something that is a non-event for us directly, but it is in the sense that it hinders the sky 6 and theoretically stops them pulling away further. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

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

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

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

shogun.thumb.jpg.00d93581768162ba3e20011bfc61a5f8.jpg it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

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

Do you have links?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...