Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Colos Short and Curlies]

3 hours ago, aussiemag said:

Are they aligning the PSR deadline with the close of the transfer window in the coming years? It would make so much more sense. 

imo it would make more sense to have all clubs move to a 31st May year end and have the season and accounting period aligned that way.

 

all transfer activity relates to the coming or present season rather than the one just gone (which would happen if the psr deadline moved to August)

[Keegans Export]

20 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

The last few days has been a really bad look for the club imo. I don’t believe for a second this was all planned. My view is we were hoping/expecting someone to trigger the Bruno clause and when that didn’t happen we got desperate. Main take is hopefully they learn a lesson and avoid it moving forward.

I think slightly different. Up until the clause expired there was a chance it could have been activated and we wouldn't have needed to sell anyone else, so why would we? Once it expired, we knew he was staying and had a week to find alternatives, which we have done.

 

If we'd gone early with Minteh/Anderson then Man City activated the clause we've let two promising youngsters go for no reason.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I think slightly different. Up until the clause expired there was a chance it could have been activated and we wouldn't have needed to sell anyone else, so why would we? Once it expired, we knew he was staying and had a week to find alternatives, which we have done.

 

If we'd gone early with Minteh/Anderson then Man City activated the clause we've let two promising youngsters go for no reason.

Makes sense to me

[elbee909]

I can't believe we've fucked up by keeping Bruno! How awful etc.

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

33 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I recall posting about the pitfalls of FFP and a lot of responses I received were our owners will figure it out they are super smart etc came up. Do people still feel that way? Or has this weekend been an eye opener? 
 

Really curious how other people perceive this now. 

Hopefully a few more pennies have dropped - and there’s no reason to panic over any of this.

 

What should be abundantly clear by now though is that the club has zero intent of challenging the rules etc set by the PL.  I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an agreement when the takeover was signed-off re this.  You can buy the club - don’t rock the boat. 

[ExiledGeordie]

So assuming these two outgoing deals go through is that us in the clear?

[r0cafella]

Just now, ExiledGeordie said:

So assuming these two outgoing deals go through is that us in the clear?

We should be yes, the worst estimate was 40m over. These two should cover that. 

[Nucasol]

Just now, ExiledGeordie said:

So assuming these two outgoing deals go through is that us in the clear?

By all accounts, yes. Swiss Ramble said in the region of £30 odd million, if Anderson goes for £10m it’s £37m of profit.

[NE27]

Just now, ExiledGeordie said:

So assuming these two outgoing deals go through is that us in the clear?

 

It would tally with what has been suggested transfer work we needed to do.

 

But you just know we will get a flurry of twitter posts today saying there is a 40m black hole in our accounts today which needs plugged.

[astraguy]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

We should be yes, the worst estimate was 40m over. These two should cover that. 

When did it suddenly rise to 40m? last i read on here we only needed to raise 6mill by June 30th

[LiquidAK]

So if we were around £40m short and spending is spread over 5 years, does that mean we effectively would've had to have spent £200m less to avoid this without any sales? 

 

I may be wildly misunderstanding as that seems insane

 

If so though, I'm not sure what those complaining we've made mistakes or panic-sold expect? Like even taking Barnes out of the equation (an argument I disagree with as I think he'll prove a great signing in the long term) - who else of the £160m-odd left are we not buying in this perfect scenario where everyone has complete foresight and every penny is spent for maximum gain? We not signing Isak? Gordon? Hell even Tonali as well still doesn't get us half way.

[relámpago blanco]

Does this mean we need to sell 40 million quids worth every summer?

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, astraguy said:

When did it suddenly rise to 40m? last i read on here we only needed to raise 6mill by June 30th

We don’t have the actual figures so you have a lot of people making a lot of different estimates and guesses. 

[High Five o]

Just now, relámpago blanco said:

Does this mean we need to sell 40 million quids worth every summer?

Our income is going up as well, and will help. As long as spending on players are at the level of the last 3 years next summer will be easier/better.

[Gawalls]

3 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said:

Does this mean we need to sell 40 million quids worth every summer?

Don’t think so - I read as it’s made up of three years that we posted something like -£70m then another -£70m so this season we had to bring that back to -£105m from what was -£140m which we’ve seemingly done if these deals go through.  One of those -£70m will now drop off the radar now as it’s a running process. However we now move over to PSR and this is all for FFP so good knows what that means.

[Andy84]

What’s curious is that Eddie seemed to mention PSR at every press conference, almost felt he shoehorned it into an answer at times.  On the face of it we’ve been caught short but hopefully this is learning for the club 

[Steve Charlton]

12 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said:

So assuming these two outgoing deals go through is that us in the clear?

Vs The Yank Cartel never.

 

Ive just read a piece on x.com that could be fake mind but its about the rumoured Gooners stadium expansion being funded by selling property to themselves just like Chelsea did recently

[TheBrownBottle]

15 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

So if we were around £40m short and spending is spread over 5 years, does that mean we effectively would've had to have spent £200m less to avoid this without any sales? 

 

I may be wildly misunderstanding as that seems insane

 

If so though, I'm not sure what those complaining we've made mistakes or panic-sold expect? Like even taking Barnes out of the equation (an argument I disagree with as I think he'll prove a great signing in the long term) - who else of the £160m-odd left are we not buying in this perfect scenario where everyone has complete foresight and every penny is spent for maximum gain? We not signing Isak? Gordon? Hell even Tonali as well still doesn't get us half way.

Not quite - it’s not 5x spending.

13 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said:

Does this mean we need to sell 40 million quids worth every summer?

The problem has existed for some time - we’ve got around £100m of amortisation and £200m of wages on the books, with a likely income just above that.  The new adidas deal will only offset the loss of CL money next season - and it isn’t clear that there is a lot of easy growth to come; some of us have bleated on for a while that the club is moving at a glacial pace re some of the low-hanging commercial fruit (training ground & kit sponsorships, for example).

 

We’re nearing our ‘natural’ income ceiling at this point - so something needs to give if further growth is achievable.  Lots of folks appear to get very upset at one obvious route - a new stadium.  Otherwise, something needs to happen re the PL rules re related sponsorships etc, or were basically reaching the edge of what is ‘naturally’ achievable. 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:02 by TheBrownBottle

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Don’t think so - I read as it’s made up of three years that we posted something like -£70m then another -£70m so this season we had to bring that back to -£105m from what was -£140m which we’ve seemingly done if these deals go through.  One of those -£70m will now drop off the radar now as it’s a running process. However we now move over to PSR and this is all for FFP so good knows what that means.

The new rules to come in next year bring all of that to a close - linking outgoings to income.  

[Doctor Zaius]

An utter bollocks set of rules about locking the gate brought fucking years after the horse has bolted.

 

Designed purely to keep the status quo and it is, reduce competition and and increase the value of said clubs.

 

Can't be arsed with it like

 

 

[Gawalls]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The new rules to come in next year bring all of that to a close - linking outgoings to income.  

What does that mean to us in a nutshell?

 

 Edit: never mind - just read your above post

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:05 by Gawalls

[SAK]

If it takes 14 teams to change PL rules then we need to start working with affected teams to propose a rule change and vote. 
 

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, SAK said:

If it takes 14 teams to change PL rules then we need to start working with affected teams to propose a rule change and vote. 
 

We know 4/6 of the Cartel won’t change, probably Chelsea too. Brentford picking up Archie Gray is solely down to PSR and having a clear run so they won’t. Brighton won’t either, doubt any of the promoted clubs will. Palace lick Cartel hoop so they’re under the thumb too. 

[Cf]

As shit as the rules are the reactions in here to our business seem a little OTT. 

 

To comply with PSR we've sold a player who has never played for us, who may or may not come good in the PL, and a player we should be looking to move on anyway. 

 

If this is the club royally fucking up I think we're in a decent spot. 

[TheBrownBottle]

7 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

What does that mean to us in a nutshell?

We’d be in an even tougher position.  We’d only be able to spend 70% of our income on players (transfers, signing on fees, wages etc).

 

Allowing for our income being what it is now - somewhere between £300-330m - that means we would be limited to £230m on wages and salaries.  (Edit - our current spend on this is c.£300m)
 

Of course a big sale quickly offsets that difference - so this year, allowing for say £40m from Minteh and Anderson, as well as ASM and Wood, would mean that we would have been just about ok.  But we’d need to do that every season just to maintain current outgoings.

 

Of course, increasing income in other ways lifts that pressure.  But it really is hard to see how NUFC gets above £400m per season without something dramatic occurring. 
 

edit: this is also why - unless the rules change - selling ‘big name’ players is likely in the not too distant future.  We’re unlikely to hold on to most of the players we sign.  Best not to get too attached!

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:11 by TheBrownBottle