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 Friday at 20:12 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 yesterday at 07:54 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 19 minutes ago 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.