Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Recommended Posts

Just now, frankpingel said:

I'm sure Merson will clear everything up tomorrow. 

If you've not got access to sky for merse stick talksport on and troy deeney will explain it all

 

 

Edited by jack j

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought all along we should have just spent what we want and challenging it in the courts when the PL tried to punish - it was clear all along the rules weren't legal.  I really hope this takes the shackles off and PIF go for it now.  Enough being 'nice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nucasol said:

Not really strange. They’re the primary rights holders and firmly in bed with the established order. It’ll be killing them that their golden goose has now got bird flu.

 

Have the EPL not already said that they are going to fuck Sky over with their own TV deal for £10 a month for every game ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jack j said:

If you've not got access to sky for merse stick talksport on and troy deeney will explain it all

 

 

 

Shouting out the window of the Sunshine Bus?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, frankpingel said:

I'm sure Merson will clear everything up tomorrow. 

He’ll definitely clear up the butchers lines. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been fucked over by the powers that be so many times, blocked at every opportunity, hamstrung and swindled over signings ever since the takeover, that I can't even get excited anymore without thinking there's going to be another door ready to be slammed in our faces just around the corner...

 

image.png.d3caad00012e8c387806a210d2f229ad.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused by the talk of the Minteh and Anderson sales and that PSR is crashing down. Isn't this solely about the APT sponsorship rules which means we would still have had to comply with the 105m PSR rule? There's an argument that if we had been allowed the higher sponsorships then we would have easily met PSR, but I can't see anything that suggests PSR is going to change as a result of this. Have I completely missed something 😅.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hudson said:

Not true, we will be suing the prem for lost revenue on the difference between what we where allowed to sign it at.

 

Say Noon wanted to pay us £100m but the prem said we could only take £60m. We sue the prem for the lost revenue of £40m.

 

 

And then agree a new deal of ?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ToonAbroad said:

Confused by the talk of the Minteh and Anderson sales and that PSR is crashing down. Isn't this solely about the APT sponsorship rules which means we would still have had to comply with the 105m PSR rule? There's an argument that if we had been allowed the higher sponsorships then we would have easily met PSR, but I can't see anything that suggests PSR is going to change as a result of this. Have I completely missed something 😅.

 

Yes and know, you've made the point but missed it's relevance, we had to sell to meet PSR but we were only on danger of breaching PSR as a result of our income potential being strangled by APT.

 

So if APT wasn't in place we would not have needed to sell to comply and we'd still have Anderson with Minteh on loan in Germany

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

Hope we have our own evidence of blocked deals. Can’t help but feel we’ve been playing by the rules though :lol:

Should take the cunts back to court for blocking the takeover again. We'd be challenging for the league without these rules and the delay in takeover. We'd also have a right winger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hudson said:

Not true, we will be suing the prem for lost revenue on the difference between what we where allowed to sign it at.

 

Say Noon wanted to pay us £100m but the prem said we could only take £60m. We sue the prem for the lost revenue of £40m.

 

 

Don't think this is necessarily correct. We could still take the 100m deal I believe, just only 60m could count towards PSR, which if we did we could now indeed claim the 40m should have counted towards PSR. Would be interesting to know what deals were knocked back altogether or (as you suggest) lowered though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally nothing has changed from what we knew.  Some of the APT rules were judged to be against UK law - and the PL was going to redraft the offending articles.  Their redrafts may also fall foul of it.

 

The PL cocked up with their hastily rewritten rules.  That doesn’t mean the end of the rules.

 

I’d be surprised if we have any benefit gained between 21-24.  The ones who should be troubled are those who had director debts not accumulating interest.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...