Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Wolfcastle]

Wouldn't be surprised if the PL merely continued on with 'unlawful' practices. Feels like that's what this has been for a long time anyway. 

Could totally see the desire for limiting spending and wasn't against it but reading it all at that time it still felt blatantly like they were changing rules to hold Man City back, in a way that had been just fine before that.  Even if that was for a club I didn't like (like say Chelsea under Abramovich) its still a bit cheaty, probably why it hadn't been done before.

[lovejoy]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, the PL implements them from this season - though this year at a reduced % before full compliance next season 

 

So what happens to clubs with huge loans that will no longer be interest-free?

 

Are they just in breach and will be dealt with by both UEFA and the Premier League?

 

Genuine question, because this could be a major issue for clubs like Brighton and Everton.

 

You’d imagine it would also impact Arsenal's growth.

 

 

[lovejoy]

2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Yes, though fines > points deductions. 

 

 

Nothing has been decided in terms of what the new PL rules will be. Non-binding trials of both squad cost ratio and laddering happening now.

 

 

Ah ok, so not set in stone then?

 

Good.

 

 

[Dokko]

Go all out, buy who we want, let them take us to court. None of it would hold up, they've broken laws in their racist attempt to block Saudi cash from entering the PL. 

[lovejoy]

As much as a whopper as Simon Jordan can be, he seems to think that Man City have done a lot more than shot the PL in the 'little toe'.

 

Guess we'll soon find out.

 

Interesting few days/weeks ahead thats for sure.

 

Football was much better when it was played on the pitch though, thats for sure.

[Heron]

6 minutes ago, RS said:

Biggest thing for me is admitting they broke competition law by rushing through the rule specifically to hinder NUFC’s progress  to appease their favourite clubs. 
 

We should sue the bent bastards for loss of trade/earnings. 

 

Yep. Formally and informally - make this a matter of us and them now and utilise it to fuel a fire that sets this steam engine rolling.

[Sima]

I notice that weasel-faced cunt Simon Parrish hasn't laid his cards on the table.

[TheBrownBottle]

11 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

 

So what happens to clubs with huge loans that will no longer be interest-free?

 

Are they just in breach and will be dealt with by both UEFA and the Premier League?

 

Genuine question, because this could be a major issue for clubs like Brighton and Everton.

 

You’d imagine it would also impact Arsenal's growth.

 

 

It definitely hits those clubs, and possibly hard.  Which is a massive change.

 

But in terms of NUFC, little has changed. 

[lovejoy]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

It definitely hits those clubs, and possibly hard.  Which is a massive change.

 

But in terms of NUFC, little has changed. 

You can’t have one without the other, in my opinion, but we’ll agree to disagree here. 👍🏻

[TheBrownBottle]

8 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

As much as a whopper as Simon Jordan can be, he seems to think that Man City have done a lot more than shot the PL in the 'little toe'.

 

Guess we'll soon find out.

 

Interesting few days/weeks ahead thats for sure.

 

Football was much better when it was played on the pitch though, thats for sure.

Simon Jordan thought we could spend £800m in Jan 2022 and managed to bankrupt himself with his running of Palace.  He’s a whopper alright, but I’m happy to take what he says with a massive dose of salt. 

[RodneyCisse]

Ideal if Arsenal, Brighton and Everton are massively impacted. The former for our European ambitions and the latter so they fall into the championship forever.

[TheBrownBottle]

10 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Go all out, buy who we want, let them take us to court. None of it would hold up, they've broken laws in their racist attempt to block Saudi cash from entering the PL. 

They haven’t, though.  We’d just get massive points deductions. 

[lovejoy]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Simon Jordan thought we could spend £800m in Jan 2022 and managed to bankrupt himself with his running of Palace.  He’s a whopper alright, but I’m happy to take what he says with a massive dose of salt. 

 

Well he didn't, but i'm not about to have a debate defending Simon Jordan as i'm not his biggest fan 😂

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It didn’t at all

 

Simon Leaf, partner and head of sport at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told BBC Sport: "Whilst the decision will be embarrassing for the Premier League, because in a couple of narrow areas their rules have been found to be unlawful, generally speaking the decision confirms that the vast majority of the APT rules are indeed lawful.

"Therefore whilst we can expect to see some changes to the rules going forwards, on the whole this isn’t a resounding victory for Manchester City by any stretch of the imagination."

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cq5eyvl7nggo.amp

And yet Nick de Marco called it significant. I know who I'd rather believe. Let's see who is the winner. Read Man City's statement 

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by et tu brute

[Heron]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It definitely hits those clubs, and possibly hard.  Which is a massive change.

 

But in terms of NUFC, little has changed. 

Would the FMV ruling not essentially mean that now the PL must be transparent on its rejections of sponsorship deals and as a result the grounds on which a rejection is made? If so, and there aren't legitimate grounds or a means to define FMV then surely it's a big thing that allows us to splash the cash (but also others admittedly)?

 

Difference being we don't have outstanding debt like the other clubs, or not much of it, by comparison...cheers Mike.

[Nucasol]

3 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

And yet Nick de Mario called it significant. I know who I'd rather believe. Let's see who is the winner. Read Man City's statement 

Dan Roan’s grubby cartel mitts all over the BBC, can’t stand the cunt.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Heron said:

Would the FMV ruling not essentially mean that now the PL must be transparent on its rejections of sponsorship deals and as a result the grounds on which a rejection is made? If so, and there aren't legitimate grounds or a means to define FMV then surely it's a big thing that allows us to splash the cash (but also others admittedly)?

 

Difference being we don't have outstanding debt like the other clubs, or not much of it, by comparison...cheers Mike.

It does, which would require them comparing them to other clubs - and I can’t see us being compared to Man City or Chelsea.  We’re pretty much back to where we were in January (though clubs with owner-related loans definitely aren’t).  Unless something else is coming down the pipeline, then we’re not about to get a load of PIF-related sponsors which would put us on steroids.

 

Ashley left a lot of debt  - happily, that was cleared in the takeover.  

[TheBrownBottle]

7 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

And yet Nick de Mario called it significant. I know who I'd rather believe. Let's see who is the winner. Read Man City's statement 

It is significant.  It just isn’t for us.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

So do the Premier League backdate the interest charges in the PSR calcs or compensate clubs who can demonstrate a loss from having to comply with the FMV/APT rules?

 

I don't see how you can just say 'fair cop gov' and only look to change the rules going forward.

[lovejoy]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It is significant.  It just isn’t for us.

 

 

Both of those sentences can't be true.

 

 

[lovejoy]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It does, which would require them comparing them to other clubs - and I can’t see us being compared to Man City or Chelsea.  We’re pretty much back to where we were in January (though clubs with owner-related loans definitely aren’t).  Unless something else is coming down the pipeline, then we’re not about to get a load of PIF-related sponsors which would put us on steroids.

 

Ashley left a lot of debt  - happily, that was cleared in the takeover.  

 

Only to Mike Ashley though, right?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It does, which would require them comparing them to other clubs - and I can’t see us being compared to Man City or Chelsea.  We’re pretty much back to where we were in January (though clubs with owner-related loans definitely aren’t).  Unless something else is coming down the pipeline, then we’re not about to get a load of PIF-related sponsors which would put us on steroids.

 

Ashley left a lot of debt  - happily, that was cleared in the takeover.  

 

I'd have thought a true FMV comparison would be to look at the sponsorships City/Chelsea etc got when they were at a similar stage of development and then adjust for inflation. Sponsors will pay a premium for a 6th place team who are obviously going to challenge top 3 in the near future and have massive exposure so you have to take potential into acocunt

[lovejoy]

Just now, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

I'd have thought a true FMV comparison would be to look at the sponsorships City/Chelsea etc got when they were at a similar stage of development and then adjust for inflation. Sponsors will pay a premium for a 6th place team who are obviously going to challenge top 3 in the near future and have massive exposure so you have to take potential into acocunt

 

Interesting point that.

 

 

[mighty__mag]

We just need to be creative.

 

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, High Five o said:

This is not correct.

Read the verdict, or at least the summary.

 

It was only because of the interest free loans not being taken into account and the time and transparency when ruling the FMV that was deemed unlawful.

Why don't we wait and see what the actual rule changes are. Man City's statement and Nick de Marco are indicating it's significant and in Man City's case they are stating that the APT rules were found unlawful and these were the original rules not only the one's in February. Only way to find out for sure is when the new rule or amendment is published. You don't cancel a meeting and then arrange an emergency meeting for minor changes