Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Miggys First Goal]

Whichever political party vows to put an end to this bullshit is getting my vote. 

[Jackie Broon]

13 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I go back to ‘how does PIF see this investment’. 
 

I don’t think they see it they way ‘City Group’ do.  We’ve not made genuine attempts at PSR circumvention. Even Villa’s owners seem more determined to change the status quo. 

 

We got a deal with Adidas double the value of the deal Aston Villa got, while at the same time there was an announcement of a 'partnership' is announced between Adidas and Sela.

 

Just because attempts at PSR circumvention haven't been obvious doesn't mean they aren't happening.

 

We just don't make sense for PIF as a financial investment, they essentially spent £1.1bn to buy us and have invested another £400m+ since then. Even discounting the cost of solving the BeoutQ issue it's a very high financial risk, high reputational risk, low return investment if they're just looking to build our value and then flip.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:59 by Jackie Broon

[christ]

People need to make their peace with the fact PIF aren’t going to go to war with the PL. They know they’re not popular. 

[Novocastrian]

What’s happening with Lewis Hall? Have we officially signed him? Is his transfer part of this PSR period or the next one?

[PauloGeordio]

“How can he say with a straight face to camera this:”

 

"There used to be a coalition of the 6 major clubs."

 

"You need to be careful they aren't disadvantaged."

 

"They need a reasonably strong say."

 

"The top 6 drive the Premiership and the world's attention."

 

 

 

[Paully]

Utter shambles 

 

The Athletic 

 

There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.

It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.

Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7.

 

[Groundhog63]

8 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Whichever political party vows to put an end to this bullshit is getting my vote. 

 

Good luck with that one then 😂

 

If "Independent" Regulators are anything to go by. Take Ofwat, Ofcom, Fuckrightoffcom 

 

Johnson knew about the ESL & was all over it

 

Starmer sits at football matches with Coe and Ratface

 

Farage stinks of piss and would ban any non white footballer

 

Davey would probably put himself in goal for the cup final. Living his best life the 5p shopping bag, PR fuck up, Royal Mail serpent 

[Matt1892]

2 minutes ago, Paully said:

Utter shambles 

 

The Athletic 

 

There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.

It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.

Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7.

 

This answers the question I asked the other day, that if we can demonstrate a pre agreement for one of our players with a Saudi club that goes through when their transfer window opens then would we receive a points deduction.

 

This reads that we are unlikely to.

 

[Jackie Broon]

 

 

15 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

Depends how hands on PIF have been, I think where lacking personnel with football knowledge in executive positions, wouldn’t be surprised if it’s been a shit show since Ashworth left.

 

All of the reports have been that PIF are very hands on, possibly excessively so, that every financial decision has to be run past them causing unnecessary delays.

[Kimbo]

28 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

We got a deal with Adidas double the value of the deal Aston Villa got, while at the same time there was an announcement of a 'partnership' is announced between Adidas and Sela.

 

Just because attempts at PSR circumvention haven't been obvious doesn't mean they aren't happening.

 

We just don't make sense for PIF as a financial investment, they essentially spent £1.1bn to buy us and have invested another £400m+ since then. Even discounting the cost of solving the BeoutQ issue it's a very high financial risk, high reputational risk, low return investment if they're just looking to build our value and then flip.

 

 

 

Imagine if they’ve ended up spending all that on a feeder club. I wonder if there’s been any conversations to cut their losses. They could buy some sports for the money involved in this.

[The College Dropout]

38 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

We got a deal with Adidas double the value of the deal Aston Villa got, while at the same time there was an announcement of a 'partnership' is announced between Adidas and Sela.

 

Just because attempts at PSR circumvention haven't been obvious doesn't mean they aren't happening.

 

We just don't make sense for PIF as a financial investment, they essentially spent £1.1bn to buy us and have invested another £400m+ since then. Even discounting the cost of solving the BeoutQ issue it's a very high financial risk, high reputational risk, low return investment if they're just looking to build our value and then flip.

 

 

 

A good deal from Adidas is not FFP circumvention.  
 

Don’t get the second paragraph. I’m not saying PIF aren’t ambitious. But it’s not the same aggressive approach taken by City.  City wanted to dominate the league and Europe as fast as possible and would exercise any legal (and potentially illegal) manoeuvre to get there and maintain it. Including being uncooperative with the league and UEFA and now taking some of them to court. PIF so far have shown no ambition to be so aggressive and adversarial.  It looks like they are happy enough to take a step back on the playing front, to work within the rules and try and take 2 forward. City, even Chelsea seem unwilling to do that.  Chelsea have aggressively exploited loopholes. We have not.  
 

A lot of people have spoken about some master plan of other teams doing our bidding and us moving in the dark.  That might be true but there’s little evidence for it.  We are just complying with the rules pretty much straight down the line.  

[SUPERTOON]

We really should have sold Trippier in January.

[Boey_Jarton]

1 hour ago, TRC said:

Unpopular opinion maybe, but we know the limits it's 105m over 3 seasons, making a loss of 35m a season when teams generate 100s of millions is more than fair. 

It doesn't objectively meet any definition of fairness as it leads to clubs with higher revenues (generated pre PSR) having budgets that are many multiples bigger than clubs that just so happened to have lower revenues at the arbitrary time of PSR implementation. 

 

To compound matters, these clubs have little hope of growing their revenue meaningfully to compensate because that requires investment in the playing squad which they can't do because that would break PSR rules. I.e. the ladder by which others ascended has been kicked down. 

 

[duo]

I would rather we just take the hit than dismantle our squad - rules might change come August anyway

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

A good deal from Adidas is not FFP circumvention.  
 

Don’t get the second paragraph. I’m not saying PIF aren’t ambitious. But it’s not the same aggressive approach taken by City.  City wanted to dominate the league and Europe as fast as possible and would exercise any legal (and potentially illegal) manoeuvre to get there and maintain it. Including being uncooperative with the league and UEFA and now taking some of them to court. PIF so far have shown no ambition to be so aggressive and adversarial.  It looks like they are happy enough to take a step back on the playing front, to work within the rules and try and take 2 forward. City, even Chelsea seem unwilling to do that.  Chelsea have aggressively exploited loopholes. We have not.  
 

A lot of people have spoken about some master plan of other teams doing our bidding and us moving in the dark.  That might be true but there’s little evidence for it.  We are just complying with the rules pretty much straight down the line.  

 

It potentially would be if the Sela 'partnership' resulted in us getting a deal double that of Villa's.

 

We just don't know what's going on behind the scenes, yes they aren't taking an outwardly aggressive approach, their approach seems to be more long term proxy war than direct conflict. Also, there's not much we can do in terms of direct conflict unless we're actually charged and have something to fight against. Chelsea have aggressively exploited loopholes but we just don't have access to those same loopholes, we don't have property worth tens/hundreds of millions and it's not clear yet whether they have been successful in exploiting those loopholes, it's a very high risk strategy. 

 

Anyway, isn't all the panic in this thread that we haven't been complying with the rules?

[duo]

11 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We really should have sold Trippier in January.

hindsight is a wonderful thing - at the time his stats were the best in europe

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, duo said:

hindsight is a wonderful thing - at the time his stats were the best in europe

It’s not really hindsight, we are less than 48 hours away from failing to meet PSR. We should have bought in money way before now.

[SUPERTOON]

Regardless of what we could and should have done, and regardless of the ridiculous rules in place, my enthusiasm for a new football season is at an all time low.

[KaKa]

15 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We really should have sold Trippier in January.

 

There was a ton of resistance to it at the time, which I didn't get.

 

He was having a poor season and is a 33 year old full back. We also had Tino coming along nicely, and Krafth to also fill in.

 

Big missed opportunity.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

It potentially would be if the Sela 'partnership' resulted in us getting a deal double that of Villa's.

 

We just don't know what's going on behind the scenes, yes they aren't taking an outwardly aggressive approach, their approach seems to be more long term proxy war than direct conflict. Also, there's not much we can do in terms of direct conflict unless we're actually charged and have something to fight against. Chelsea have aggressively exploited loopholes but we just don't have access to those same loopholes, we don't have property worth tens/hundreds of millions and it's not clear yet whether they have been successful in exploiting those loopholes, it's a very high risk strategy. 

 

Anyway, isn't all the panic in this thread that we haven't been complying with the rules?

Maybe. But why would Adidas do underhand dealings? Sela are a legitimate business and we are a high potential club. 
 

By circumvention I’m talking doing something we wouldn’t otherwise do because of PSR. Eg selling the stadium. A thousand official partners.  Deals with Adidas as a partner is not circumvention. 
 

There’s no evidence of a proxy war.  Others are fighting. And we are not. Seemingly. 
 

Chelsea exploited loopholes from the start with the 8 year contracts. We could’ve done that. We can sell property too. We could do 20 999,999 deals. Chelsea even have a fake main sponsor. It’s risky and aggressive. That’s not our approach.  Success should come but the road will be a long one - unless others do our dirty work or we pivot approach. Villa and Forest owners have come out against the PL. We’ve not done that either. 

[duo]

3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

It’s not really hindsight, we are less than 48 hours away from failing to meet PSR. We should have bought in money way before now.

A.) so the press say B.) I would assume the club had planned to sell one of the fringe players instead - trouble is most are already on cushty contracts so aren't interested in leaving 

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Regardless of what we could and should have done, and regardless of the ridiculous rules in place, my enthusiasm for a new football season is at an all time low.

 

As long as we keep our core players we are going to be very good this season.

 

Outside of Man City and Arsenal the league is wide open.

 

Personally, I can't wait for the actual football to kick off. 

[Terraloon]

4 hours ago, r0cafella said:

A lot of folks keep saying this but it doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Three ways to change the rules as far as I'm aware:

 

1, By convincing 13 other members the rules suck and should be changed. (6 clubs getting points deductions kind does the opposite as it makes the lives of the other 14 easier as the competition is weakening. 

2, legal challenge. 

3, You lobby for the independent regulator and then lobby them regarding these rules (IF such a thing exists in the regulators mandate that is).

 

 

 1)What so many seem to forget is that to complete in European football you have to be granted a licence. To gain a licence you have and will have to comply with UEFAs FFP (FSR) which aren’t stricter than the PLs PSR or amended version which ,from what I have read , will be easier to  meet than UEFAs rules. So why would any club with aspirations to play in Europe vote to get rid of rules that they almost certainly meet by default ?

2) What makes that more difficult dips that UEFA requires National Governing bodies to have in place a form of PSR if there isn’t one in place then the national body aren’t empowered to issue any UEFA  licences which by default would almost certainly mean that English’s clubs couldn’t play in Europe.

3) Which Court would you challenge the regulations? Please don’t say  CAT. ? 
4) This sort of matter simply isn’t , based on the White Paper , going to fall under any Regulators remit.

 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

There was a ton of resistance to it at the time, which I didn't get.

 

He was having a poor season and is a 33 year old full back. We also had Tino coming along nicely, and Krafth to also fill in.

 

Big missed opportunity.

Tbf we didn’t know we were heading towards failing PSR. The club must’ve known it was a real opportunity which is why I think we courted transfer offers. Eales put out that message and there was a rush of bids for a few of our players. 
 

My best guess is that we thought we could make up the gap in league prize money?
 

Knowing what we know now. It was a mistake. 

[Boey_Jarton]

57 minutes ago, Paully said:

Utter shambles 

 

The Athletic 

 

There could be some leeway, though. Provided a transfer has been signed off between two clubs, which constitutes a legally binding contract, ahead of midnight on June 30, a club would likely be able to include it in the previous year’s accounts even if it is concluded a day or two later.

It is the auditors, though, who judge that — not the Premier League. There’s a point at which a player has passed from one club to another because a transfer becomes irreversible. This does not mean the point at which a player’s registration is transferred.

Everton’s sale of Richarlison to Tottenham for £60million in summer 2022 illustrates that element of flexibility. The Brazilian’s move was not formally announced until July 1, but advanced talks on the previous day ensured Everton could record his sale in their 2021-22 accounts. They also included Ellis Simms’ £6million move to Coventry City of the Championship last year in their 2022-23 accounts, despite that transfer being concluded on July 7.

 

The fact that a football board is starting to discuss Financial Reporting Standards 102,  Section 23 Revenue Recognition, demonstrates the complete nonsense that the premier league has got itself into.