Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Terraloon]

8 hours ago, Pata said:

 

It's not really worth noting though, all those players are either old or not important without checking. We have important players that are old but if they are still good on the pitch they most likely have no reason to leave and we could always extend them without much drama (Schär, Wilson, Trippier, Burn etc.).

I think you have explained why it is worth noting 

 

At the end of next season they will obviously all be a year older so the likes of Trippier will be close to 35 how long would you suggest he should get in terms of contract length? Pretty sure he will be looking for more than just one year and being a free agent increase significantly what he could earn . Letting so many players get into the last year of their contracts creates issues .

 

 

But to potentially loose a core of experience at season 24/25 means  that they will have to be replaced that doesn’t come cheap and when you bear in mind that this group between them made  over 200 PL appearances between them for you in 23/25 you can see just how important they are to you .In 23/24 you had the third oldest squad in the PL younger only than WHU & Fulham so I would imagine that EH would be looking to get the average age down and you don’t do that by giving players approaching mid thirties long deals.

 

 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

We are working on backfilling the older players.

 

Burn is replaced at LB and CB with younger players already. Trippier's replacement is there. We are looking for Pope, Almiron & Schar replacements as a priority. I'd be happy to extend 2 of them.

 

The rest are back-up players.

 

I agree that if we were going to breach PSR we would've sold some players. We won't take the points hit. Us/Villa were only a couple points ahead of 5th - we can't afford to lose a couple points because we didn't want to sell Miguel Almiron quickly.

 

 

Edited June 19 by The College Dropout

[Pata]

5 hours ago, Terraloon said:

I think you have explained why it is worth noting 

 

At the end of next season they will obviously all be a year older so the likes of Trippier will be close to 35 how long would you suggest he should get in terms of contract length? Pretty sure he will be looking for more than just one year and being a free agent increase significantly what he could earn . Letting so many players get into the last year of their contracts creates issues .

 

 

But to potentially loose a core of experience at season 24/25 means  that they will have to be replaced that doesn’t come cheap and when you bear in mind that this group between them made  over 200 PL appearances between them for you in 23/25 you can see just how important they are to you .In 23/24 you had the third oldest squad in the PL younger only than WHU & Fulham so I would imagine that EH would be looking to get the average age down and you don’t do that by giving players approaching mid thirties long deals.

 

 

 

 

 

TCD already made a good post but I'll reply too as your post has many inaccuracies. We've already given Trippier, Schär and Wilson one year extensions without any drama. There will absolutely not be any drama if Burn needs a new contract. Saying they would ask for more money due to FA status just doesn't apply when they want to be here and in case of Trippier already took a pay cut when he initially joined. Burn has two replacements already (Hall and Kelly), Livramento steps in in place of Trippier when the time comes. We are actively looking for younger understudies (or a replacement in case of Almiron) for Pope, Schär, Wilson and Almiron this window.

 

I hope we can sell Almiron and maybe Wilson this window but it's not really the end of the world if really old players walk as their transfer value has already plummeted. Getting £10m for Wilson isn't that important when him being in the squad could easily be worth that in league prize money and possible qualification for Europe. 

 

Players like Gallagher entering their last year is a massive problem and should never be allowed in the age of FFP but NUFC right now doesn't have that problem. All the young core players have long deals. Instead we are happy many contracts are ending as so many of those players we simply can't move and they have no value on the pitch either and so far the important older players have been happy to sign short extensions.

[nufcjmc]

Players surving their club well their club and leaving on a free is fine in theory. The issue is that while older players have very little saleable value anymore, they do, however, cost money and, in some respects alot say a striker to replace. Ideally, the club needs to be in the main ship. These players, when in contract, rather than "kicking the can down the road," offering short 12-month extensions. It is  a balancing act as what they bring to the side out weighs what you will get in money return, but letting any asset go for nothing isn't maintainable. 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, Pata said:

 

TCD already made a good post but I'll reply too as your post has many inaccuracies. We've already given Trippier, Schär and Wilson one year extensions without any drama. There will absolutely not be any drama if Burn needs a new contract. Saying they would ask for more money due to FA status just doesn't apply when they want to be here and in case of Trippier already took a pay cut when he initially joined. Burn has two replacements already (Hall and Kelly), Livramento steps in in place of Trippier when the time comes. We are actively looking for younger understudies (or a replacement in case of Almiron) for Pope, Schär, Wilson and Almiron this window.

 

I hope we can sell Almiron and maybe Wilson this window but it's not really the end of the world if really old players walk as their transfer value has already plummeted. Getting £10m for Wilson isn't that important when him being in the squad could easily be worth that in league prize money and possible qualification for Europe. 

 

Players like Gallagher entering their last year is a massive problem and should never be allowed in the age of FFP but NUFC right now doesn't have that problem. All the young core players have long deals. Instead we are happy many contracts are ending as so many of those players we simply can't move and they have no value on the pitch either and so far the important older players have been happy to sign short extensions.

The point I am trying to make isn’t that they will ask for more money at NUFC is that being a free agent enables the to command a reasonable signing on fee if say they went to Ipswich. I very much doubt players going into their mid thirties will command an increased salary if they sign extension 

Of course the likes of Tripper signed extensions but in his case that was a two year deal do you think that he will be getting another 2 year deal ?

As for having a replacement for Burn, for Tripper I don’t doubt that they are in place but you have to have in place back ups for those replacements and that’s where the cost arises 

The reason the current owners are looking to potentially selling Gallagher is obviously FFp driven  he won’t sign a new deal if that situation remains then he won’t start the 24/25 season at Chelsea.

[Pata]

I'm sorry but I can't see any NUFC regular, be it Trippier, Schär or Burn sign for Ipswich to get a couple of million more on a signing on fee.  If they are sitting at bench here it's possible to get playing time but not for money. As a Chelsea fan life must be very money-centric.

[gdm]

When is the Man City court case due to finish? 

[r0cafella]

Just now, gdm said:

When is the Man City court case due to finish? 

If I recall correctly the last day of the hearing is today. 

[gdm]

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

If I recall correctly the last day of the hearing is today. 

Thank you. 

[FloydianMag]

3 hours ago, r0cafella said:

If I recall correctly the last day of the hearing is today. 

No leaks either to the usual sports journo’s.

[nufcnick]

20 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

No leaks either to the usual sports journo’s.

I wonder if that means it’s going poorly for the premier league 

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, nufcnick said:

I wonder if that means it’s going poorly for the premier league 

I really hope so.

[Dr Jinx]

So hypothetically, if City win this case, does that rule get thrown out immediately?

[FloydianMag]

5 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

So hypothetically, if City win this case, does that rule get thrown out immediately?

You would assume so. My understanding of the basis of City’s case is that it’s unlawful and breaches UK Competition Law. If City win their case the PL surely could not continue to act unlawfully. I would have thought though that only a CAT ruling could determine it breached competition law. 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 05:37 by FloydianMag

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

8 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

You would assume so. My understanding of the basis of City’s case is that it’s unlawful and breaches UK Competition Law. If City win their case the PL surely could not continue to act unlawfully. I would have thought though that only a CAT ruling could determine it breached competition law. 

 

 

 

 

maybe a potential outcome could be that the case needs to go to a cat tribunal.  

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

maybe a potential outcome could be that the case needs to go to a cat tribunal.  

The arbitration panel is made up of three highly qualified and experienced lawyers/former judges, if their decision is that the APT rule would/could breach competition law, the PL would have a decision to make. They either remove the APT rule or go to a CAT that they are likely to lose. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

19 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

The arbitration panel is made up of three highly qualified and experienced lawyers/former judges, if their decision is that the APT rule would/could breach competition law, the PL would have a decision to make. They either remove the APT rule or go to a CAT that they are likely to lose. 

That makes sense.  I was just thinking that they may chose to refuse to make a decision or given an opinion saying that this was the wrong forum for an argument on completion law.  I’m not sure if the arbitration process was set up with the intent to decide matters like this.  I thought it was more to decide differences of option on interpretation of the premier league rules.  Not whether they are legal.  This is just pure speculation on my part though. 

[Whitley mag]

32 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

The arbitration panel is made up of three highly qualified and experienced lawyers/former judges, if their decision is that the APT rule would/could breach competition law, the PL would have a decision to make. They either remove the APT rule or go to a CAT that they are likely to lose. 

We know how they fold when it goes to CAT as well.

[Keegans Export]

I'm assuming that even when the hearing is completed the judges will have a period of time to deliberate, has there been any indication as to how long that is expected to take?

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

I'm assuming that even when the hearing is completed the judges will have a period of time to deliberate, has there been any indication as to how long that is expected to take?

I believe it could be 4-6 weeks, however there won’t be any public announcement given that the arbitration process is supposed to be confidential. There could be the inevitable leaks although there hasn’t been during the two week hearing, I hope this is an indication that things aren’t going the PL’s way, if it was I’m sure the journo’s would be busting a gut to get something out there.

 

 

[PauloGeordio]

7 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I believe it could be 4-6 weeks, however there won’t be any public announcement given that the arbitration process is supposed to be confidential. There could be the inevitable leaks although there hasn’t been during the two week hearing, I hope this is an indication that things aren’t going the PL’s way, if it was I’m sure the journo’s would be busting a gut to get something out there.

 

 

🤞🏻

[duo]

Come on - let the flood gates open...

 

 

Edited Saturday at 08:07 by duo

[Maggies]

City are also claiming damages from the Premier League. The rule must surely be immediately lifted if they win otherwise the queue of damage claims will grow.

[The Prophet]

Fuck PSR.

 

That is all.

[TheBrownBottle]

14 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

We know how they fold when it goes to CAT as well.

I mean, we don’t - Ashley dropped the CAT when the club was sold.