Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[FloydianMag]

 

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

 

 

I read that as Man City are after Matt Targett 

[pubteam]

6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I read that as Man City are after Matt Targett 

Me too, maybe it's a psr favour 🤣

 

 

Edited January 3 by pubteam

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, Decky said:

If you can provide guarantees that the club will be financially safe then an owner should be able to invest what they want. A prime example being an owner just giving their club money that isn't a loan and has no repercussions for the club in years to come.

 

Clubs are businesses, finishing in European spots and winning trophies boosts its profile, generates more money, and leaves the business with more value for the owner. In what other industry would there be rules preventing a business owner from growing their business like this?

 

I really long for the day a club has the balls to take these rules makers to court over the legality of the rules because they're the most blatant example of anti-competitive corruption you're ever likely to see. 

 

 

 

Sport isn’t any other business, though.  It never has been.  Other businesses don’t ‘own’ their employees’ registrations to work and pay extravagant sums to buy those registrations.

 

The ‘Super League’ ruling vs UEFA shows what might happen - that clubs will be ruled as having the right to enter any competition that they want to, making being in the PL a choice - and therefore it isn’t anti-competitive if you willingly sign up to it.

 

NB the PL’s clubs voted unanimously for the new FFP rules. 

[Stifler]

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Sport isn’t any other business, though.  It never has been.  Other businesses don’t ‘own’ their employees’ registrations to work and pay extravagant sums to buy those registrations.

 

The ‘Super League’ ruling vs UEFA shows what might happen - that clubs will be ruled as having the right to enter any competition that they want to, making being in the PL a choice - and therefore it isn’t anti-competitive if you willingly sign up to it.

 

NB the PL’s clubs voted unanimously for the new FFP rules. 

They didn’t vote unanimously though.

In fact the Premier League weren’t going to get the votes required the day before, when they decided to bribe 2 clubs to swing it their way.

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Stifler said:

They didn’t vote unanimously though.

In fact the Premier League weren’t going to get the votes required the day before, when they decided to bribe 2 clubs to swing it their way.

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/11/clubs-agree-to-cap-spending-on-players-as-part-of-premier-league-psr-reform

[Stifler]

24 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/11/clubs-agree-to-cap-spending-on-players-as-part-of-premier-league-psr-reform

The most recent rules were only voted on in November.

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Sport isn’t any other business, though.  It never has been.  Other businesses don’t ‘own’ their employees’ registrations to work and pay extravagant sums to buy those registrations.

 

The ‘Super League’ ruling vs UEFA shows what might happen - that clubs will be ruled as having the right to enter any competition that they want to, making being in the PL a choice - and therefore it isn’t anti-competitive if you willingly sign up to it.

 

NB the PL’s clubs voted unanimously for the new FFP rules. 

 

I think that's a bit of a leap, and not a likely effect of the ESL ruling.

 

The whole concept of FFP/PSR is to some extent anti-competitive, the argument would be to what extent is that necessary in the public interest.

[Sima]

At the basic level, how can a club that makes a profit spend less than a club that loses hundreds of millions with these rules?

 

It’s fucking mental.

 

I know there’s obviously nuance, btw.

 

 

Edited January 4 by Sima

[Ben]

TBF I like the idea of capping spending on players at 70% of revenue, that is a sustainable model which will prevent numpty owners putting clubs at risk. Its the fair market value for commercial deals I hate, that is anti competitive and only in place to clip our wings.

[huss9]

i mentioned it in the match thread but spurs' enormous club shop was rammed with paying customers today.

dont know how busy ours gets pre-match.

[Stifler]

25 minutes ago, huss9 said:

i mentioned it in the match thread but spurs' enormous club shop was rammed with paying customers today.

dont know how busy ours gets pre-match.

Ours is much busier than it used to be.

 

As our merchandise grows, it will only get busier. In saying this, I think it’s going to be difficult for Adidas to maintain the income from things like the originals range etc. Once people have that, and have the retro top, and the Gazelles trainers, will they be so desperate next year to do it again?

[huss9]

5 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Ours is much busier than it used to be.

 

As our merchandise grows, it will only get busier. In saying this, I think it’s going to be difficult for Adidas to maintain the income from things like the originals range etc. Once people have that, and have the retro top, and the Gazelles trainers, will they be so desperate next year to do it again?

another 3 new kits  and more training gear next season and they will fly off the shelves too.

[TheBrownBottle]

15 hours ago, Ben said:

TBF I like the idea of capping spending on players at 70% of revenue, that is a sustainable model which will prevent numpty owners putting clubs at risk. Its the fair market value for commercial deals I hate, that is anti competitive and only in place to clip our wings.

Definitely.  Clubs are community institutions and should be protected from stupid and careless ownership.  But money poured into the coffers from sponsors should be the business of those two parties. 

[astraguy]

Spuds have alot of South Korean fans come over to watch son 

[t00nt00n313]

21 hours ago, huss9 said:

i mentioned it in the match thread but spurs' enormous club shop was rammed with paying customers today.

dont know how busy ours gets pre-match.

London has a lot of tourists from around the world who go on holiday to the UK (but only see London) and want to see a football match. It's one of the major advantages London clubs have.

 

 

Edited January 5 by t00nt00n313

[Disco]

Seem loads of Spuds whinging about tourists and ticket resellers this weekend. All helps I guess.

[Hudson]

21 hours ago, Stifler said:

Ours is much busier than it used to be.

 

As our merchandise grows, it will only get busier. In saying this, I think it’s going to be difficult for Adidas to maintain the income from things like the originals range etc. Once people have that, and have the retro top, and the Gazelles trainers, will they be so desperate next year to do it again?

I pray they release a city edition pair for Newcastle. 
Just Imagine them in the current away strip colours. 
 

 

[Hudson]

12 hours ago, astraguy said:

Spuds have alot of South Korean fans come over to watch son 

That’s not going to last forever though, once that dries up could be a bit of a hit to merch sales and day trippers.

[TheBrownBottle]

I wonder if the post-Taylor world where clubs try to fill their grounds with season ticket holders might draw to a close.  While providing guaranteed base income, for clubs who could sell all their tickets anyway, the likelihood is these days that this is actually an income inhibitor.  Better to have as many ‘day trippers’ in the stadium as possible rather than the same punters every week who are unlikely to drop a chuck of change in the club shop etc. 

[LFEE]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I wonder if the post-Taylor world where clubs try to fill their grounds with season ticket holders might draw to a close.  While providing guaranteed base income, for clubs who could sell all their tickets anyway, the likelihood is these days that this is actually an income inhibitor.  Better to have as many ‘day trippers’ in the stadium as possible rather than the same punters every week who are unlikely to drop a chuck of change in the club shop etc. 

 

Depends where the location of the club is and how successful it is. London clubs can rely on that market easier as it’s a big tourist destination. Don’t however get the feeling theirs a big queue for Millwall 

 

We could have a decent tourist contingent. Especially as the Saudis will fly more flights to our airport as they slowly turn our coastline into a Eco powered bulkhead and transport hub as they slowly move away from relying on oil profits.

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I wonder if the post-Taylor world where clubs try to fill their grounds with season ticket holders might draw to a close.  While providing guaranteed base income, for clubs who could sell all their tickets anyway, the likelihood is these days that this is actually an income inhibitor.  Better to have as many ‘day trippers’ in the stadium as possible rather than the same punters every week who are unlikely to drop a chuck of change in the club shop etc. 

It massively depends on each club and their location.

Spurs are a London club with the biggest and one of the newest stadiums in the city. They also have the Son interest from Asia. I doubt Crystal Palace are getting a lot of tourists attending their games.

 

The Manchester clubs are in a city that still gets a lot of tourists, much more than what Newcastle gets. Liverpool is sort of an extension of that, and they do have connections to Ireland where they have a decent following.

 

I’ll be shot down for saying this, but if Celtic and Rangers were in the Premier League, and able to build a Spurs like stadiums in Glasgow, they would fill it out with tourism there.

 

Newcastle doesn’t have that many tourists compared to other U.K. cities, and our airport connections are not all that good. We have no full time flights to/from the USA, or Canada for example. Even Edinburgh’s airport is about the same distance away as Manchesters, and we likely are not getting people coming through either of those to come to us.

 

If we continue to grow, no doubt we’ll start to get more tourists come to SJP/Leazes Park, but not to the level other clubs are doing so. We will not be getting the extra 20k-30k worth of people each match in anyway.

 

 

Edited January 5 by Stifler

[London Mag]

Spurs get lots of Korean tourists because of Son. Always loads at each home game. He's probably worth a fortune to them in merchandise etc in South Korea

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

43 minutes ago, Stifler said:

It massively depends on each club and their location.

Spurs are a London club with the biggest and one of the newest stadiums in the city. They also have the Son interest from Asia. I doubt Crystal Palace are getting a lot of tourists attending their games.

 

The Manchester clubs are in a city that still gets a lot of tourists, much more than what Newcastle gets. Liverpool is sort of an extension of that, and they do have connections to Ireland where they have a decent following.

 

I’ll be shot down for saying this, but if Celtic and Rangers were in the Premier League, and able to build a Spurs like stadiums in Glasgow, they would fill it out with tourism there.

 

Newcastle doesn’t have that many tourists compared to other U.K. cities, and our airport connections are not all that good. We have no full time flights to/from the USA, or Canada for example. Even Edinburgh’s airport is about the same distance away as Manchesters, and we likely are not getting people coming through either of those to come to us.

 

If we continue to grow, no doubt we’ll start to get more tourists come to SJP/Leazes Park, but not to the level other clubs are doing so. We will not be getting the extra 20k-30k worth of people each match in anyway.

 

 

 

Actually think Palace get a fair few tourists due to Ted Lasso, as bizarre as it sounds

[Exiled in Texas]

Palace (like Fulham) get the overflow of tourists who want to see an Arsenal, Chelsea or Spurs game but cannot get tickets to they go to Palace where they can buy a Ticket.