Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Erikse]

1 hour ago, Fenham Mag said:

That photo says it all, empty stadium, sold for £55m - I'm fucking sick of this shit.

 

Chelsea got £200m, didn't they?

[TRon]

40 minutes ago, Jesse Pinkman said:

Can’t the parent company just sell it back to them for £10m and then rinse and repeat? 

 

Yes. Unless you've signed a prior agreement not to be a naughty boy before buying a club.  

[gdm]

23 minutes ago, Robster said:

It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Not really. Has to go thru the fair market value just like transfers & sponsorship does it not? 

[Nucasol]

13 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Chelsea got £200m, didn't they?

Mr Serena Williams bought 10% for £20m as a favour to his private equity backers which Chelsea then used to inflate the value.

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Yes. Unless you've signed a prior agreement not to be a naughty boy before buying a club.  

What did we sign and what did it say?

 

If it says we won’t exploit loopholes - we’ve already done that.  If it’s to not challenge the rules - we haven’t and won’t. 
 

This ‘signed prior agreement’ line doesn’t standup to scrutiny. 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by The College Dropout

[Erikse]

I bet Premier League will start looking into the rules now that a threat to their favourites did it.

[Robster]

9 minutes ago, gdm said:

Not really. Has to go thru the fair market value just like transfers & sponsorship does it not? 

More than likely, yes. I was probably being a bit flippant, sorry.
The cartel wouldn't be bound by those rules but we certainly would.

[TK-421]

Was thinking about this whole 'selling assets' thing, and I had a query, but not knowing too much about the the various company structures involved with Chel$ea and now A$ton Villa, it may not be possible.

So, the main company, that reports its accounts to the PL for PSR/FFP sell assets to a sub-company which is all allowed and the loophole not closed. Thus giving the main company/Club the cash injection needs for PSR/FFP, but the sold asset stays within 'the group'.

What is to stop, at some point in the future, the parent company winding up the sub-company, and absorbing it back into itself, along with those assets again?

Is this the next play for a few years down the line, so the assets Chelsea (and Villa) sold 'themselves' end up back in the main ownership, to potentially, be sold again?

Or would that not be possible/feasible?

[gdm]

Was there a vote whether or not to close this loophole? And if so is it known how we voted?

[Geordie Ahmed]

3 minutes ago, gdm said:

Was there a vote whether or not to close this loophole? And if so is it known how we voted?

 

According to reports it didn't go as far as having a vote as the PL knew there wasn't enough support for the proposal to pass 

 

I suspect only Chelsea/Villa would vote in favour of it now, why would other teams deny themselves a possible solution further down the line?

 

 

[SAK]

4 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said:

PSR died as a serious concept with this Hotel/Womans team nonsense. 
 

Im not a hater of PSR in general and think things could be quite grim without it but it feels like we’ve crossed the Rubicon of allowing teams to circumvent it. 
 

Sticking to the rules gets you nowhere, starting to feel we should try and burn the whole thing to the ground. 

I’m all for financial controls but PSR is a rigged system to keep the status quo. Bring in a maximum squad cost (transfers, salaries, bonuses and agent fees) that can be spent by all clubs not this system where the historically wealthy/succesful get to spent unlimited sums compared to the rest.
 

To safeguard clubs against unscrupulous owners make it a rule that only a certain percentage can be debt finance and a plan is submitted six monthly to the league to show how these debts will be repaid. If you want to go above the debt cap then you can spend owners money but this can’t be a loan against the club.

[Begbie]

10 minutes ago, SAK said:

I’m all for financial controls but PSR is a rigged system to keep the status quo. Bring in a maximum squad cost (transfers, salaries, bonuses and agent fees) that can be spent by all clubs not this system where the historically wealthy/succesful get to spent unlimited sums compared to the rest.
 

To safeguard clubs against unscrupulous owners make it a rule that only a certain percentage can be debt finance and a plan is submitted six monthly to the league to show how these debts will be repaid. If you want to go above the debt cap then you can spend owners money but this can’t be a loan against the club.

That would be fair, so the cartel clubs wont vote it in..

[Stottie]

Didn't Villa vote against us, City, Forest etc. on the related party transactions thing?

 

I seem to remember that vote carrying something like 15 to 5, but if Villa, I dunno maybe Leeds, can be drawn over to the dark side, the Premier League will no longer have the 14 votes it needs to prolong the "craven to the Sky 6" status quo we have at the moment. I think we only need one or two more clubs to switch sides for the voting situation to change.

 

[gdm]

I’m not blaming Villa at all it’s within the rules but the way their fans are celebrating getting round PSR is very distasteful to me

[astraguy]

Villas mess was around £200m,So selling the womens team still means they are fucked?

[madras]

4 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said:

PSR died as a serious concept with this Hotel/Womans team nonsense. 
 

Im not a hater of PSR in general and think things could be quite grim without it but it feels like we’ve crossed the Rubicon of allowing teams to circumvent it. 
 

Sticking to the rules gets you nowhere, starting to feel we should try and burn the whole thing to the ground. 

PSR died as a serious concept with the hurried passing of the APT rules and the reason for them. It was then it became obvious to everyone it's purpose was to protect some clubs at the expense of others.

[Geordie Ahmed]

9 minutes ago, Stottie said:

Didn't Villa vote against us, City, Forest etc. on the related party transactions thing?

 

I seem to remember that vote carrying something like 15 to 5, but if Villa, I dunno maybe Leeds, can be drawn over to the dark side, the Premier League will no longer have the 14 votes it needs to prolong the "craven to the Sky 6" status quo we have at the moment. I think we only need one or two more clubs to switch sides for the voting situation to change.

 

 

But if the related party transactions has previously been voted against then that means it's active, for it to be reversed it would require 14 clubs to vote to scrap, which would never happen 

[Stottie]

That's certainly true, but the current rules have X lawyers defending them, versus the 10X Man City lawyers attacking them. 

The related party thing had a new vote because City's legal team proved the rules were invalid, and the vote passed because there are still enough status quo clubs out there.

Every club that peels off from the status quo will make it difficult for any invalidated rule to be reinstated in a similar format.

I'm not the biggest Villa fan, but them voting with the Sky Six on things like this struck me as weird. They can't keep coming up with a Grealish or Duran to sell every couple of seasons.

[The Prophet]

[Slim]

2 hours ago, Erikse said:

I bet Premier League will start looking into the rules now that a threat to their favourites did it.

How many times it need said? Premier league have tried to close the loop holes and the clubs voted against it.

 

The selling women teams got voted down recently.

[Slim]

Just now, The Prophet said:

So a fine as per normal.

[gbandit]

Set it all on fire and start again, Guy Fawkes it all please so we can get back to actually just following football rather than this fucking nonsense clownshow off the pitch 

[gdm]

1 minute ago, Slim said:

So a fine as per normal.

That’ll show them 

[The Prophet]

Not exactly a desirable position to be in. Potentially same again without CL next year too.

[gdm]

1 minute ago, gbandit said:

Set it all on fire and start again, Guy Fawkes it all please so we can get back to actually just following football rather than this fucking nonsense clownshow off the pitch 

this really can’t be doing the Premier League as a brand and a league any good at all. I’ve almost had enough with it all and we just had our best season ever. Viewing figures were already down last season, how many more people will start to turn off?

 

I didn’t grow up loving football for the financial shite to mean more than the actual game on the pitch.