Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[PauloGeordio]

21 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

UEFA wants Cash Fines for clubs that don't meet the criteria, I wonder where that cash will go 

We can live with that though, no?

[NG32]

The amount of money that flows through UEFA they should be able to put a 3G pitch on the moon. 

 

 

[TRon]

32 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

We can live with that though, no?

 

I would imagine the Man U/Liverpool head honchos have already instructed the PL on that possibility. No chance that will be allowed to happen in England.

[simonsays]

57 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

UEFA wants Cash Fines for clubs that don't meet the criteria, I wonder where that cash will go 

isn't the whole idea to make sure clubs are sustainable?  How does lumping fines onto clubs who are apparently living beyond their means helps with this?

[Jonas]

30 minutes ago, simonsays said:

isn't the whole idea to make sure clubs are sustainable?  How does lumping fines onto clubs who are apparently living beyond their means helps with this?

Helps about as much as handing out points deductions that risk relegation for clubs otherwise sustained by PL money.

Only thing it there to sustain is the pecking order

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, simonsays said:

isn't the whole idea to make sure clubs are sustainable?  How does lumping fines onto clubs who are apparently living beyond their means helps with this?

 

I suppose they would say that it's about preventing a situation where clubs need to spend beyond their means to keep up with the bankrolled clubs, and the potential inflationary effect of bankrolled clubs increasing tranfer fees and wages across the board.

[Groundhog63]

1 hour ago, simonsays said:

isn't the whole idea to make sure clubs are sustainable?  How does lumping fines onto clubs who are apparently living beyond their means helps with this?

 

I'm old enough to remember the days when, if you went unauthorised over ya overdraft limit, ya bank would charge you £25 for it and send you a letter from the bank manager and charging you a further £25 for that 😂😂😂

[Rod]

2 hours ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

I'm old enough to remember the days when, if you went unauthorised over ya overdraft limit, ya bank would charge you £25 for it and send you a letter from the bank manager and charging you a further £25 for that 😂😂😂

Shocking wasn't it.  Twice TSB tried that with me.  I would be a fiver overdrawn but my wages would be going in my bank balance sometimes hours later so I had loads in my account.  I was overdrawn for perhaps an hour.  I always got reimbursed and an apology.  So frustrating.

[madras]

1 hour ago, Rod said:

Shocking wasn't it.  Twice TSB tried that with me.  I would be a fiver overdrawn but my wages would be going in my bank balance sometimes hours later so I had loads in my account.  I was overdrawn for perhaps an hour.  I always got reimbursed and an apology.  So frustrating.

I had the same issue with TSB. My girlfriend of the times pay would go in once the same day as our mortgage went out. We could actually get them to check their sheets to see if her money had gone in although it didn't show up on our balance but every month they'd send us the letter about being overdrawn, the fine and the charge for the letter, every month we'd have to go in and tell them the money was there and that it was there systems error. It eventually stopped when she said that next time we'd get our solicitor to draft them a letter for which we'd charge them.

[r0cafella]

Lisa Nandy was on the athletic podcast and they asked her would the govt be providing funding to old Trafford and she basically refused to rule it out. Old Trafford meaning the actual stadium

 

[Stifler]

18 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Lisa Nandy was on the athletic podcast and they asked her would the govt be providing funding to old Trafford and she basically refused to rule it out. Old Trafford meaning the actual stadium

 

We all know that they will.

A little bit of INEOS lobbyist here, a little bit of the required Labour donation there, add on a sprinkle of it being the governments flagship project for the North.

 

 

Edited Friday at 04:58 by Stifler

[r0cafella]

43 minutes ago, Stifler said:

We all know that they will.

A little bit of INEOS lobbyist here, a little bit of the required Labour donation there, add on a sprinkle of it being the governments flagship project for the North.

 

 

 

This is problematic. Let's zoom out. Manchester United is a company listed on the us exchange. Are we buying a stake with any investment or is it a donation to the shareholders?

[Cf]

17 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Thought this was a good explainer for anyone who cares.

 

It's the anchoring part which will be key here but that all sounds broadly sensible doesn't it?

 

If I was in charge of coming up with something I think it would look pretty much the same. 

[Gaztoon]

16 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

We can live with that though, no?

 

MLB  do something similar..money goes to the other franchises.

[r0cafella]

Spoiler

Matt Slater 

 

While the PFA is not opposed to the idea of SCR, a form of which already operates in both League One and Two, it believes the Premier League knows it cannot get the two-thirds majority it needs from clubs in a vote to bring it in without also introducing anchoring.

 

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

It's the anchoring part which will be key here but that all sounds broadly sensible doesn't it?

 

If I was in charge of coming up with something I think it would look pretty much the same. 

Not on twitter so can't see the whole thread. 

 

That being said Anchoring is problematic and the PFA will be fighting it should they go ahead. 

[Keegans Export]

14 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

It's the anchoring part which will be key here but that all sounds broadly sensible doesn't it?

 

If I was in charge of coming up with something I think it would look pretty much the same. 

The problem with anchoring (from our perspective) is that it will be used in conjunction with the proposed 70% cap, rather than replace it, as I understand it.

 

We'll still be limited to either the anchoring multiplier or the 70% cap, whichever is the lowest. It means that even if we can find a way around the APT rules and substantially increase our revenue, there's going to be another cap right around the corner.

[SUPERTOON]

Didn’t we vote in this new anchoring/squad cost rule ?

[r0cafella]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

The problem with anchoring (from our perspective) is that it will be used in conjunction with the proposed 70% cap, rather than replace it, as I understand it.

 

We'll still be limited to either the anchoring multiplier or the 70% cap, whichever is the lowest. It means that even if we can find a way around the APT rules and substantially increase our revenue, there's going to be another cap right around the corner.

That's correct it would still be helpful as it would put a hard cap on the gap, it essentially brings the entire field together even with the squad cost ratio. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

Didn’t we vote in this new anchoring/squad cost rule ?

Yes because both of them combined net out to be a positive. Squad cost without anchoring is worst for us than the current system however we need all the details. 

[Cf]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

The problem with anchoring (from our perspective) is that it will be used in conjunction with the proposed 70% cap, rather than replace it, as I understand it.

 

We'll still be limited to either the anchoring multiplier or the 70% cap, whichever is the lowest. It means that even if we can find a way around the APT rules and substantially increase our revenue, there's going to be another cap right around the corner.

 

But if we hit the anchoring cap that's at least the same cap as the other teams. 

 

In theory it should be set at such a value that the "average" PL team hits the anchoring cap at 70%, lower teams hit their 70% cap, and higher teams hit the anchoring cap and effectively are capped at 50% or whatever. 

[Cf]

Just now, Cf said:

 

But if we hit the anchoring cap that's at least the same cap as the other teams. 

 

In theory it should be set at such a value that the "average" PL team hits the anchoring cap at 70%, lower teams hit their 70% cap, and higher teams hit the anchoring cap and effectively are capped at 50% or whatever. 

 

That said it'll obviously be anchored higher than that if they go with this kind of system. 

[duo]

Anchoring is the key one to bridge the gap

[janpawel]

Why isn't anchoring calculated on the higher end, ie based on the club with the highest revenue rather than the lowest 

 

I know that will probably still allows clubs to spend a shed load and that's probably not what they want 

 

But it defeats the argument of the PL losing status to abroad by restricting the top EPL clubs, and instead of 'restricting' teams it 'enables' teams

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, janpawel said:

Why isn't anchoring calculated on the higher end, ie based on the club with the highest revenue rather than the lowest 

 

I know that will probably still allows clubs to spend a shed load and that's probably not what they want 

 

But it defeats the argument of the PL losing status to abroad by restricting the top EPL clubs, and instead of 'restricting' teams it 'enables' teams

Anchoring won't run alone, it will be anchoring plus squad cost it's just anchoring is the upper limit.