Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[bobbydazzla]

1. I want to be able to buy the players we want and can afford, who will improve the 1st team and squad
2. I want to be able to refuse to sell players we don't want to sell, if they also don't want to leave
3. I want to be able to offer wages that are competitive versus other top teams across the PL and Europe
4. I want to be able to agree sponsorship deals that are at least a similar level as sponsorship money being received by the cartel clubs
5. I want to be able to tell all other clubs that they can GET TO FUCK if they ever try again to put rules in place that stop us doing any of 1-4

 

That's not too much to ask is it ?

 

ps. I'd like it acknowledged that due to 14 years of disgraceful anti-competitive ownership, NUFC are in a financial "catch up" position and mid-term will need to massively overspend vs revenue just to become competitive again 

 

 

Edited November 7 by bobbydazzla

[Paully]

We've been nice and soft for far too long - if we're able to attract huge sponsorship from friends of PIF then I'm 100% for it and to blow the bellend cartel mob out of the water!

 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

As long as those boundaries are wide enough to throw enough money to bridge the gap I don't see why we won't do it. Previously the sponsorship restrictions were a roadblock. If that's an avenue where we can make up the difference, then there will be more incentive for the rest of it.

FMV will still exist with these rules.  You think we can close the gap with sponsorships by £200-500m per year?

[TRon]

11 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

FMV will still exist with these rules.  You think we can close the gap with sponsorships by £200-500m per year?

 

No I don't. I think we need removal of FFP/PSR to compete properly. I made it quite clear.

 

All the rest of it, multi-club ownership, new stadium etc, are all still avenues, but they will be looked on as investments. If they can bring some return in an acceptable period, we can pursue those anyway.

[The College Dropout]

5 hours ago, TRon said:

 

No I don't. I think we need removal of FFP/PSR to compete properly. I made it quite clear.

 

All the rest of it, multi-club ownership, new stadium etc, are all still avenues, but they will be looked on as investments. If they can bring some return in an acceptable period, we can pursue those anyway.

So how do we compete consistently with the gap in revenue?

[Unbelievable]

I subscribe to the notion that we are being hamstrung in attempting to compete with the current best clubs due to a large revenue gap and measures in place to stop us from increasing our commercial revenue fast enough to catch up anytime soon. Having said that, I do think (commercial) revenue is far from a decisive factor on its own and is easily trumped by better management of the footballing side of things. Look no further than Man United and their bumper 2023 EUR 746m revenue, 355m of which commercial. Arsenal for example have pissed all over them the last couple of seasons, despite having only just about half of Man Utd's commercial revenue (EUR 196m). As long as our owners invest in the right areas that for the most part are exempt of PSR, such as the academy, the best youth prospects and upgrading our training facilities, as well as continue to grow revenue at a higher rate than our competitors (a bigger stadium will help) we will eventually catch up. Personally I am still delighted about the trajectory of our club, and satisfied that it doesn't have the artificial feel too much of a PSG, Man City or Chelsea rise to the top merely by throwing money around. We are well managed, heading in the right direction and the owners have restored pride in our team after 14 years of purgatory - that is all I ever wanted and long may it last.

[PauloGeordio]

6 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

I subscribe to the notion that we are being hamstrung in attempting to compete with the current best clubs due to a large revenue gap and measures in place to stop us from increasing our commercial revenue fast enough to catch up anytime soon. Having said that, I do think (commercial) revenue is far from a decisive factor on its own and is easily trumped by better management of the footballing side of things. Look no further than Man United and their bumper 2023 EUR 746m revenue, 355m of which commercial. Arsenal for example have pissed all over them the last couple of seasons, despite having only just about half of Man Utd's commercial revenue (EUR 196m). As long as our owners invest in the right areas that for the most part are exempt of PSR, such as the academy, the best youth prospects and upgrading our training facilities, as well as continue to grow revenue at a higher rate than our competitors (a bigger stadium will help) we will eventually catch up. Personally I am still delighted about the trajectory of our club, and satisfied that it doesn't have the artificial feel too much of a PSG, Man City or Chelsea rise to the top merely by throwing money around. We are well managed, heading in the right direction and the owners have restored pride in our team after 14 years of purgatory - that is all I ever wanted and long may it last.

This. Expectations were raised hugely with talk of winning the league within 5 years! Once the stadium decision is announced that will give us a clearer idea of intent. The amount of money and work to secure and build on the crumbling foundations is immense in such a short time.  If we can get Europe, some savvy transfers using the Mitchell blue print and keep growing, the future is still bright and black and white.

[r0cafella]

6 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

I subscribe to the notion that we are being hamstrung in attempting to compete with the current best clubs due to a large revenue gap and measures in place to stop us from increasing our commercial revenue fast enough to catch up anytime soon. Having said that, I do think (commercial) revenue is far from a decisive factor on its own and is easily trumped by better management of the footballing side of things. Look no further than Man United and their bumper 2023 EUR 746m revenue, 355m of which commercial. Arsenal for example have pissed all over them the last couple of seasons, despite having only just about half of Man Utd's commercial revenue (EUR 196m). As long as our owners invest in the right areas that for the most part are exempt of PSR, such as the academy, the best youth prospects and upgrading our training facilities, as well as continue to grow revenue at a higher rate than our competitors (a bigger stadium will help) we will eventually catch up. Personally I am still delighted about the trajectory of our club, and satisfied that it doesn't have the artificial feel too much of a PSG, Man City or Chelsea rise to the top merely by throwing money around. We are well managed, heading in the right direction and the owners have restored pride in our team after 14 years of purgatory - that is all I ever wanted and long may it last.

I dont agree. When it comes to revenue over performance over and period of time those who spend the most always place higher than thos that don't. Now of course you have outliers in your example Manchester United but let's not forget last season was the worst they've finished in premier league history and during that time period they were always top 2 in revenue. 

 

In order to compete at the highest level you need to have best in class and all of that expensive. Weather it's best in class academy or best in class manager. 

 

Individual fluctuations are a given but if you look at the average it becomes abundantly clear. 

[Ben]

On 06/11/2024 at 15:58, timeEd32 said:

This is not leading to a free for all, which I never expected anyway. All of these things are a positive though:

 

include shareholder loans in financial assessments (presumably with a FMV interest coupon applied). Equity injections will remain exempt under the new rules.

 

return to the original FMV wording that asks if a transaction “could” be sold between willing parties, instead of “would.” The Amended APT rules’ addition of “in normal market conditions” will also be removed to allow broader value interpretations, especially for unique sponsorship contexts.

 

granting clubs access to the Databank of commercial deals that the PL uses in FMV determinations, and this access will come before the appeal stage.

 

roll back stricter FMV criteria introduced in February 2024.

 

It's certainly better than where things were / where they were heading. It will be very interesting to see if this gets the necessary support.

 

Why the fuck were the clubs never granted access to the databank of commercial deals !! That is corrupt as fuck, the ability to move the goalposts as they see fit is disgraceful 

[FloydianMag]

17 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Why the fuck were the clubs never granted access to the databank of commercial deals !! That is corrupt as fuck, the ability to move the goalposts as they see fit is disgraceful 

Especially if you wanted to appeal against their decision of FMV you didn’t have access to how they arrived at that decision, making it difficult to appeal. Corrupt as fuck.

[bobbydazzla]

20 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Especially if you wanted to appeal against their decision of FMV you didn’t have access to how they arrived at that decision, making it difficult to appeal. Corrupt as fuck.

The PL were doing to Man City on sponsorship what they did to NUFC on our takeover

 

Don’t approve it, don’t reject it, just put it in medium term limbo and hope the companies who want to sponsor / takeover get frustrated and walk away 

 

The league is corrupt as fuck, a cartel of clubs calling the shots to financially neuter any competition and a complicit PL willing to act in the best interests of the cartel 

 

I’d like Masters and the PL to come out and say on record why they believe non-cartel teams having access to finance that can improve their ability to challenge an established cartel is a BAD thing.
 

Why is becoming more competitive actually anti-competitive and doesn’t more teams being competitive increase the excitement and global profile of the league ? 

 

 

Edited November 8 by bobbydazzla

[Stifler]

57 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Why the fuck were the clubs never granted access to the databank of commercial deals !! That is corrupt as fuck, the ability to move the goalposts as they see fit is disgraceful 

The hope was that in order to try and stay under what others are earning, to make it look like fair value, you would overcompensate and leave yourself well short of others.

[r0cafella]

27 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

The PL were doing to Man City on sponsorship what they did to NUFC on our takeover

 

Don’t approve it, don’t reject it, just put it in medium term limbo and hope the companies who want to sponsor / takeover get frustrated and walk away 

 

The league is corrupt as fuck, a cartel of clubs calling the shots to financially neuter any competition and a complicit PL willing to act in the best interests of the cartel 

 

I’d like Masters and the PL to come out and say on record why they believe non-cartel teams having access to finance that can improve their ability to challenge an established cartel is a BAD thing.
 

Why is becoming more competitive actually anti-competitive and doesn’t more teams being competitive increase the excitement and global profile of the league ? 

 

 

 

Your right about the motives a couple of points from myself to add on/to discuss. 

 

1, it's important to recognise Richard Masters is just an employee and the "league" are the ones who call the shots his job is to implement said shots. 

 

2, the reason we have this situation is because the status quo is beneficial to the majority of clubs, when thinking about the league as a whole it's important to put all of that kicking a ball on a pitch to the side and put on the suit and tie. The bottom line is most of the owners are happy to have the value of the clubs go up without having to do much, they essentially have a informal cap on cost which is great because they skirt all sorts of rules this way. It's a quid quo pro if you will. 

[TRon]

13 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

So how do we compete consistently with the gap in revenue?

 

We don't.

[Paully]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

We don't.

Exactly - so if we get a chance to use our PIF friends for sponsors then we really need to go to absolutely town with it!  

[TRon]

4 hours ago, r0cafella said:

I dont agree. When it comes to revenue over performance over and period of time those who spend the most always place higher than thos that don't. Now of course you have outliers in your example Manchester United but let's not forget last season was the worst they've finished in premier league history and during that time period they were always top 2 in revenue. 

 

In order to compete at the highest level you need to have best in class and all of that expensive. Weather it's best in class academy or best in class manager. 

 

Individual fluctuations are a given but if you look at the average it becomes abundantly clear. 

 

 

Agree with this. Yes we can run our club more efficiently than the cartel clubs, but you can't count on that as a long term policy because those clubs are all trying to be best in class in the same departments. That's how Man U poached Dan Ashworth. The only way to close the gap guaranteed is to compete for the best players short term, that will catapult us into the top echelons and get us that brand value. The rest of the stuff like infrastructure will go alongside this because all obstacles to becoming a leading world club will have been removed.

[RS]

I see us leaving the Premiership and being an integral part of the European Super League.  EPL are forcing everyone into a corner that will eventually cause a rebellion 

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, Paully said:

Exactly - so if we get a chance to use our PIF friends for sponsors then we really need to go to absolutely town with it!  

 

At least that should prevent us from having to sell young assets to satisfy PSR. Still doesn't seem to be clear just how much we can take the piss with the sponsorship restraints, no one really seems to have given an opinion on it in the press. Or if they have it's still quite cagey.

[The College Dropout]

2 hours ago, TRon said:

 

 

Agree with this. Yes we can run our club more efficiently than the cartel clubs, but you can't count on that as a long term policy because those clubs are all trying to be best in class in the same departments. That's how Man U poached Dan Ashworth. The only way to close the gap guaranteed is to compete for the best players short term, that will catapult us into the top echelons and get us that brand value. The rest of the stuff like infrastructure will go alongside this because all obstacles to becoming a leading world club will have been removed.

I don’t agree with this. 
 

if we sign 3 £60m players and don’t sell high value players we’ll need £70m in additional revenue every year. And need more additional revenue to sign more players. 

brand value is built over time. 
 

 

[manorpark]

2 hours ago, RS said:

I see us leaving the Premier "ship" and being an integral part of the European Super League.  EPL are forcing everyone into a corner that will eventually cause a rebellion 

 

I think we will stay in the Premier League.

[Stifler]

3 hours ago, RS said:

I see us leaving the Premiership and being an integral part of the European Super League.  EPL are forcing everyone into a corner that will eventually cause a rebellion 

I can see us being given an invite to join, but not being part of the founding members discussion.

No doubt the same clubs who are trying to prevent us from blowing everyone in the Premier League, will want to do so in an ESL as well.

Despite what Staveley said, if the discussions happened again, we would be interested. The fans won’t, but the owners and people running it will be.

Maybe we’d use it as leverage in the Premier League though.

 

I do worry, and think that it’s only a matter of time before the ESL raises It’s ugly head again.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

I don’t agree with this. 
 

if we sign 3 £60m players and don’t sell high value players we’ll need £70m in additional revenue every year. And need more additional revenue to sign more players. 

brand value is built over time. 
 

 

 

But it still won't close the gap unless we can compete for the best players so we can build a winning brand. How do you propose to change that?

 

 

[FloydianMag]

Been reading that there’s been some pushback by some clubs on shareholder loans and interest. Apparently the interest rate for individual clubs who have such loans will depend on the credit worthiness of the clubs. Not sure if there’s anything in this but EFC’s credit rating must be junk level. 

 

Came across this on Bluemoon if anyone’s interested.

 

Edit: found this

 

https://www.irishnews.com/sport/soccer/concerns-raised-that-proposed-new-shareholder-loan-rules-will-aid-richest-clubs-H5EXH5NBZFMNLLHRYB67Z6W6YU/

 

 

Edited November 8 by FloydianMag

[Keegans Export]

5 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Been reading that there’s been some pushback by some clubs on shareholder loans and interest. Apparently the interest rate for individual clubs who have such loans will depend on the credit worthiness of the clubs. Not sure if there’s anything in this but EFC’s credit rating must be junk level. 

 

Came across this on Bluemoon if anyone’s interested.

 

Edit: found this

 

https://www.irishnews.com/sport/soccer/concerns-raised-that-proposed-new-shareholder-loan-rules-will-aid-richest-clubs-H5EXH5NBZFMNLLHRYB67Z6W6YU/

 

Makes sense. If they're applying an element of "fair market value" then some clubs will get better rates of interest than others. 

[FloydianMag]

13 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Makes sense. If they're applying an element of "fair market value" then some clubs will get better rates of interest than others. 

I guess there’s a fair chance those clubs will likely vote against the new ‘amendments’ PL have got themselves in a bit of a mess.