Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[GeordieDazzler]

Isn’t that basically what Fun88 were?

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, GeordieDazzler said:

Isn’t that basically what Fun88 were?

Aye yeah, the same as a lot of these gambling sponsors nobody has ever heard of. 

[Gawalls]

22 hours ago, Geogaddi said:

So basically , if you are are in Europe we will let you spend more to help ensure you keep qualifying for Europe, which ensures any teams not in Europe are automatically handicapped making it harder for them to qualify for Europe . I can see why the big 6 want this but why on earth would anyone else vote for it ?

Not forgetting if you do get into Europe then you’ll get paid a fraction of the big six as payments is linked to how many times you’ve been in the competition.

[Fezzle]

15 hours ago, 54 said:

Totally legitt:

 

 

Worked fine for Chelseas imaginary sponsor

[madras]

4 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said:

Isn’t that basically what Fun88 were?

As far as I'm aware they operated legally.

[timeEd32]

On 29/05/2024 at 00:54, Optimistic Nut said:

In American sports where there are salary caps, etc are figures linked to income, or can the smallest team spend the same in theory as the biggest?

Single figure across the league with many quirks in each sport.

 

Baseball has a luxury tax if you exceed a certain number instead of a cap. And revenue sharing where each team puts almost half of their revenue into a shared pot and it’s distributed equally. Basically the big market teams subsidize some smaller ones and then some of those owners still spend nothing. It’s Mike Ashley’s dream.

[The Prophet]

Vintage stuff from the PL to leave Everton's takeover in limbo until they pull the plug themselves. Top regulation.

[Tiresias]

777 should absolutely not be allowed to take over a football club they are a borderline pyramid scheme and the takeover was delayed because basically the premier league said no chance unless you can demonstrate a standard of liquidity that it was beyond obvious that they never would. Everton should have pulled the plug on it there and then but Moshiri continued to bet everything that this dodgy company defaulting on huge debts here there and everywhere would somehow prove themselves to actually have money they never did. This was the regulation actually doing it's job all the blame needs to fall on Moshiri (and 777 group but really they are chancers whose model relies on moving debt around and continually expanding to pay off the increasing debt, a model with a very obvious end point).

[The Prophet]

5 hours ago, Tiresias said:

777 should absolutely not be allowed to take over a football club they are a borderline pyramid scheme and the takeover was delayed because basically the premier league said no chance unless you can demonstrate a standard of liquidity that it was beyond obvious that they never would. Everton should have pulled the plug on it there and then but Moshiri continued to bet everything that this dodgy company defaulting on huge debts here there and everywhere would somehow prove themselves to actually have money they never did. This was the regulation actually doing it's job all the blame needs to fall on Moshiri (and 777 group but really they are chancers whose model relies on moving debt around and continually expanding to pay off the increasing debt, a model with a very obvious end point).

 

I respectfully disagree. A cursory reading of their background is enough to inform a regulator they aren't fit and proper owners. Rather than make their position clear early on, they instead hid behind a conditional approval that was never going to be fulfilled, waiting for Everton to pull the plug.

 

That's not removing responsibility from Moshiri either, who is ultimately the problem here.

[Tiresias]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

I respectfully disagree. A cursory reading of their background is enough to inform a regulator they aren't fit and proper owners. Rather than make their position clear early on, they instead hid behind a conditional approval that was never going to be fulfilled, waiting for Everton to pull the plug.

 

That's not removing responsibility from Moshiri either, who is ultimately the problem here.

 

Completely disagree. Why shouldn't the league say it can go ahead with these stipulations? Why should it be on the league to call time on it? Maybe the company could come through with their demands as unlikely as it clearly was? Just saying no when circumstances change would be ludicrously arbitrary. The rules should clearly be takeovers are allowed if criteria are met not we say no then no matter what changes it's still a no? It is entirely on moshiri too live in the delusion they would come through, not for the league to talk an owner into common sense. 

 

Everton fans I've spoken to have long long long been aware 777 was never going to go through. Slating the league for the delusion of the owner is nonsense.

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Tiresias said:

 

Completely disagree. Why shouldn't the league say it can go ahead with these stipulations? Why should it be on the league to call time on it? Maybe the company could come through with their demands as unlikely as it clearly was? Just saying no when circumstances change would be ludicrously arbitrary. The rules should clearly be takeovers are allowed if criteria are met not we say no then no matter what changes it's still a no? It is entirely on moshiri too live in the delusion they would come through, not for the league to talk an owner into common sense. 

 

Everton fans I've spoken to have long long long been aware 777 was never going to go through. Slating the league for the delusion of the owner is nonsense.

 

...because they want to regulate.

 

A regulator should immediately be telling both parties they have serious concerns with the transaction and if they aren't resolved, mitigated or explained in a certain timeframe they won't be approving it.

 

A regulator is meant to be there to prevent bad faith or detrimental transactions. 

 

It's taken a ridiculous amount of time resolve when the writing has been on the wall for some time.

[The Prophet]

Ultimately I guess it depends how involved you want the league to be in these things. There's no right or wrong answer.

 

 

Edited June 1 by The Prophet

[Tiresias]

31 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

...because they want to regulate.

 

A regulator should immediately be telling both parties they have serious concerns with the transaction and if they aren't resolved, mitigated or explained in a certain timeframe they won't be approving it.

 

A regulator is meant to be there to prevent bad faith or detrimental transactions. 

 

It's taken a ridiculous amount of time resolve when the writing has been on the wall for some time.

 

But that's what they did they said it won't be approved if 777 couldn't do x and 777 couldn't do X. I don't see why the league should be imposing deadlines that would just be arbitrary. The only reason it's taken so long is because of Everton not the league.

 

 

Edited June 1 by Tiresias

[The Prophet]

Imagine my shock.

[madras]

5 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Imagine my shock.

It's almost as if some clubs are above the rules.

[PauloGeordio]

7 minutes ago, madras said:

It's almost as if some clubs are above the rules.

Make the rules! 

 

[duo]

13 minutes ago, madras said:

It's almost as if some clubs are above the rules.

[Abacus]

If true, can they not see how that would look if they get drawn together?

 

Do they care?

[Gawalls]

3 minutes ago, Abacus said:

If true, can they not see how that would look if they get drawn together?

 

Do they care?

It happened last year with Brighton and recently with Villa I believe, as long as clubs don’t exchange players I think it’s allowed.

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, Gawalls said:

It happened last year with Brighton and recently with Villa I believe, as long as clubs don’t exchange players I think it’s allowed.

In both circumstances, their owners reduced their share in the other club.

[Wolfcastle]

Clubs playing clubs owned by the same people - totally fine, nothing like as bad as clubs wanting to compete, they're the ones that are ruining football the big fat ruiners

 

[gdm]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Imagine my shock.

Hasn’t this been happening anyway? Didn’t Leipzig & Salzburg both play in the champions league ? 

[Gawalls]

20 minutes ago, Stifler said:

In both circumstances, their owners reduced their share in the other club.

You’re right they did - on a different note just got my 50th birthday present and my wife got me (as well as a fender bass acoustic guitar) a Newcastle top from the year I was born.

 

 

Edited June 2 by Gawalls

[Chris L]

23 minutes ago, gdm said:

Hasn’t this been happening anyway? Didn’t Leipzig & Salzburg both play in the champions league ? 

They had to make changes. 
 

“

Austrian drinks company Red Bull owned both teams up until this investigation when they were forced to make changes due to UEFA rules. 

Salzburg chose to remove members of staff that were allegedly linked to Red Bull and their cooperation deal with Leipzig was ended with the sponsorship scaled back. 

Once all of these changes were made, UEFA then accepted that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ that the clubs had a shared ownership and they were both allowed to compete in Europe. ”

[The Prophet]

Isn't it the AGM this week? Should be interesting.