Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[MagCA]

5 minutes ago, Ben said:

What would actually happen if some company rocked up and said I want to sponsor the Stadium for £200 million a year ?

When the highest in football is 30m a year, I fail to see how we’d ever get anything close to that never mind 200m a year. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

14 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Just noticed this from yesterday, Villa seem in a difficult position:

 

 

 

It's absolutely scandalous that Villa and ourselves are in this position. I can't believe there aren't more clubs backing us.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

It's absolutely scandalous that Villa and ourselves are in this position. I can't believe there aren't more clubs backing us.

Because they are all happy with what they get. They do not want the shackles to come off as it would force the EFL to do the same. 

[TheBrownBottle]

33 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Just noticed this from yesterday, Villa seem in a difficult position:

 

 

They’re right in the shite if that’s true. 

[Turnbull2000]

That's not true surely

[Stifler]

24 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

If they were linked to our owners it would go through Fmv and be marked down. 

 

If it wasn't linked to our owners we would get the 200m 

FMV applies to all deals over £1m now.

[Dr.Spaceman]

13 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Because they are all happy with what they get. They do not want the shackles to come off as it would force the EFL to do the same. 

 

I hadn't considered the effect the other way, teams being able to properly push to get in and then attempt to sustain life in the PL with minimal risk. I was always under the impression that owners like Khan, Parrish etc just didn't want to use their personal finance to fund anything more than mid table mediocrity, I hadn't considered the threat of those with ambition below them.

 

I can't believe it's still just the same relatively small group banging on about the injustice of it all.

[BergenMagpie]

Should just copy paste the list of official parntners Man Utd has and get some Saudis to pay 999,999 pounds a year to be our sofa guys etc

[Dr.Spaceman]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

FMV applies to all deals over £1m now.

 

So what you're saying is you could in theory have 100 million completely separate deals at £1 each and they wouldn't be scrutinized? No chance.

[The College Dropout]

23 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

It's absolutely scandalous that Villa and ourselves are in this position. I can't believe there aren't more clubs backing us.

What other owners want to personally bankroll their teams?

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

So what you're saying is you could in theory have 100 million completely separate deals at £1 each and they wouldn't be scrutinized? No chance.

That's literally how it works though

[ChrisMcQuillan]

2 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

So what you're saying is you could in theory have 100 million completely separate deals at £1 each and they wouldn't be scrutinized? No chance.

 

[Steve Charlton]

2 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

Should just copy paste the list of official parntners Man Utd has and get some Saudis to pay 999,999 pounds a year to be our sofa guys etc

 

“Official Mattress supplier” haha sure there is a tractor one aswell 

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, Stifler said:

FMV applies to all deals over £1m now.

Are you sure this applies to none related parties? Slam dunk restraint of trade if so. 

[Stifler]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Are you sure this applies to none related parties? Slam dunk restraint of trade if so. 

Yeah, every commercial deal over £1m, I think the value is actually just below £1m actually.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Sid said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx2mknlvyw3o

 

Well worth reading IMHO.

 

Man U write to fans group.

 

Wonder how long these rules will stick around if they inadvertently affect those who wanted them in the first place?

 

Over 20 million just to lose the last manager and bring the next one in.

 

 

 

 

That's just due to their own mismanagement though. Nowt to stop them putting in their own money to cover the losses they incurred due to their own stupidity. Apart from PSR of course.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

Yeah, every commercial deal over £1m, I think the value is actually just below £1m actually.

Too lazy to go and dig through the rules, I thought this was removed as apart of cities case but let's see. 

 

 

[TRon]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

What other owners want to personally bankroll their teams?

 

 

That's fine if they don't want to, but why should that mean other owners can't if they have the funds? I'm sure Sir Jim Ratshit is probably over the moon that PSR is making him cut costs and increase prices, but as long as that's Man U's problem that's fine. It's when the cartel start trying to poke their nose in other teams business that it starts to grate.

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

That's fine if they don't want to, but why should that mean other owners can't if they have the funds? I'm sure Sir Jim Ratshit is probably over the moon that PSR is making him cut costs and increase prices, but as long as that's Man U's problem that's fine. It's when the cartel start trying to poke their nose in other teams business that it starts to grate.

My reply is in response to ‘can’t believe other clubs don’t want to change the rules’. 
 

Changing the rules means higher costs for them.  Why would they want that?

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

My reply is in response to ‘can’t believe other clubs don’t want to change the rules’. 
 

Changing the rules means higher costs for them.  Why would they want that?

 

Yes I can understand why they don't want to change the rules, but the rules shouldn't be there in the first place. It's restriction of trade. We had no such rules when Ashley didn't want to spend any money, Chelsea, Man City et al were quite free to do so.

[Turnbull2000]

The PL would consider this the perfect season to give them a points penalty - would likely mean finishing 14th rather than 9th

[NWMag]

2 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Are you sure this applies to none related parties? Slam dunk restraint of trade if so. 

I think the PL get around the restraint of trade because I don’t think they stop the actual sponsorship, they just limit how much of it is included in PSR calculations.

 

i.e if a company wanted to sponsor a part of the club for £20 million, but the PL deemed it only £10million for FMV, they can’t stop the company giving us £20million, but when it comes to FFP calculations only £10 million would be included. 
 

thats my understanding of it anyway, happy to be proven wrong if so.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Prediction time…..another quiet summer window and the likes of Palace, Brighton and Brentford will start to change their stance on the limits as they see their business model begin to fall apart.

 

we’re going to see the bigger teams start looking to buy from South America etc rather than wait and pay a premium from a PL club so double whammy in having more competition to buy and a smaller market to sell in.

 

Brighton’s last windfall drops out after next season and I don’t see another £80m duo there atm

[Nucasol]

17 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

Prediction time…..another quiet summer window and the likes of Palace, Brighton and Brentford will start to change their stance on the limits as they see their business model begin to fall apart.

 

we’re going to see the bigger teams start looking to buy from South America etc rather than wait and pay a premium from a PL club so double whammy in having more competition to buy and a smaller market to sell in.

 

Brighton’s last windfall drops out after next season and I don’t see another £80m duo there atm

Pedro would go for big money. Evan Ferguson was supposed to be the big hope after he banged in that hat trick against us but has fallen off a cliff. 

[SAK]

https://archive.ph/NkJI1
 

Man City APT case decision to be made by tribunal panel in February, hopefully they side with City in their ruling making the APT rules null and void.