Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Ben]

35 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It's not so black and white hence the trial they are doing here (Singapore)

 

What is that trial for ? 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Ben said:

 

What is that trial for ? 

Direct to consumer EPL subscription. 

[Robster]

Maybe Man City are next on the agenda...

 

[Loki679]

11 hours ago, Ben said:

create their own TV station with worldwide rights for a fairly low monthly subscription

 

I can see one of these two things happening.

[Ben]

52 minutes ago, Loki679 said:

 

I can see one of these two things happening.

 

Normally id agree but Simon Jordon did some rough maths on it and @ £10 a month each teams income could at least double.

[gdm]

the game is truely fucked 

[SteV]

13 minutes ago, gdm said:

the game is truely fucked 

If I’m understanding the statement correctly (and there’s a reasonable chance I’m not…), it would seem that WBA haven’t been on top of a rule change (regardless of what that rule change was) and have made a miscalculation that has pushed them over the limit.

 

It’s all a bit shit, as these things often are, but you’ve got to stay on top of the rules nowadays, otherwise this is the result.

 

Points deduction probably feels a bit harsh (even if it’s ‘only’ two points which are going to result in being fairly irrelevant) but seems teams don’t really care about fines.

[TheBrownBottle]

16 hours ago, gdm said:

the game is truely fucked 

It is, but Winter’s point is irrelevant - it wasn’t meted out by the same administrative body as the one which allowed clubs selling hotels to themselves 

[gbandit]

16 hours ago, gdm said:

the game is truely fucked 

Sick of it like. Never felt closer to walking away from the sport. I stepped away from Newcastle when Bruce was here under Ashley but I wasn’t as finished with the sport as a whole then as I am now 

[TomYam]

On 24/04/2026 at 01:41, TheBrownBottle said:

Thanks Tom, that was a good read.  Yes, the 1988 discussion is what I was referring to - and while our board at the time equivocated a bit, we were absolutely open to it. 
 

What’s even more shocking is that our chairman (McKeag) was also chairman of the Football League, with responsibility to look after the interests of all 92 clubs - yet he wasn’t turning around and telling the then-‘Big Five’ to fuck right off!   

That's not how I remember it. I believe Philip Carter was both Chairman of the Football League and Everton F.C in 1988. Everton were one of the 5 clubs plotting  greater financial rewards and greater executive control for themselves. Gordon McKeag was one of the FL administrators  that compelled Carter to resign (by vote) as the Everton chairman was evidently going against the interests of the collective within the FL pyramid. In short, Carter was a spy in the camp. 

Gordon McKeag was a traditionalist and believed in the collective nature of the FL, but sought a middle ground to keep the Football structure together.

Bill Fox, chairman of Blackburn Rovers was voted in to replace Carter at the back end of 1988 and he was more radical and spoiled for a fight with the Greedy 5. It probably antagonised them still further as the FA swung round in full support of tge breakaway PL that the Selfish 5 had long cherished.

[TomYam]

On 24/04/2026 at 07:03, OpenC said:

There's a canny difference between being greedy cunts at an open trough, and actively putting rules in place to stop anyone else getting to that trough BB. I don't think there's a massive equivalence between the 1988-92 gold rush and the blatant gerrymandering that constitutes the administration of the game these days. 

 

 

 

True, and if you substitute the royal blue of Everton for the royal blue of Chelsea, it's the same 5 clubs conniving and corrupting.

Back then they had Murdoch to shore up the deal, these days their tentacles spread far and wide with big business and most of the media tickling their every fancy. As you say, it's only the hardcore fans, and especially those of ManCity and Chelsea, that halted the dastardly ESL fait accompli.

[FloydianMag]

On 24/04/2026 at 19:14, Ben said:

 

Normally id agree but Simon Jordon did some rough maths on it and @ £10 a month each teams income could at least double.

I doubt any such deal would mean equal shares for all clubs, you can bet that the cartel will want a major share of monies generated from a PL channel. They’d argue that their clubs would generate a huge amount of any revenues.

[1881]

37 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I doubt any such deal would mean equal shares for all clubs, you can bet that the cartel will want a major share of monies generated from a PL channel. They’d argue that their clubs would generate a huge amount of any revenues.

Exactly and it is the real core of all the current issues: vast majority football’s income comes from broadcasters, therefore in football authorities interests to keep them happy and therefore both want to keep the clubs with the biggest global fan bases happy.  Only makes the football world go around in ever decreasing circles.

 

 

Edited April 26 by 1881

[The Prophet]

Must say, delighted West Brom stayed up. Imagine going going down due to a payment made to your own charity? What the fuck are we doing man?

[Wolfcastle]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Must say, delighted West Brom stayed up. Imagine going going down due to a payment made to your own charity? What the fuck are we doing man?

Could have had three clubs relegated due to points deductions, thankfully we avoided that farce and settled at two. Top work football authorities and bravo to the new rules I say.

[FloydianMag]

 

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

5 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

 

sure to get voted down no ?

 

the ones who can spend will continue to do so, the ones that can’t won’t want the gap getting any bigger 

 

bet it’s the Makams vote that sways it also 

[Sima]

18 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

 

 

One for the punchable faces thread.

[Ben]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

 

 

Good Afternoon Lord Sugar, my business plan is to allow clubs to go over their financial restrictions and then just pay us a bung to sort it.

 

 

.......your hired.

 

 

Edited May 16 by Ben

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

 

 

Seems above board and not at all open to abuse.

[Ben]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

Seems above board and not at all open to abuse.

 

I imagine Man City could get away with the 115 charges by chucking a few quid about.

[Mattoon]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Seems above board and not at all open to abuse.

 

Liverpool, you have overspent by £600m in the last accounting period, what is your proposal for settlement? £1.50 yes that seems adequate, on you go rascals. Oh, Nottingham Forest, we see you went over your limit by £1.50? £600m and a 20 point deduction!"

[Ben]

1 minute ago, Mattoon said:

 

Liverpool, you have overspent by £600m in the last accounting period, what is your proposal for settlement? £1.50 yes that seems adequate, on you go rascals. Oh, Nottingham Forest, we see you went over your limit by £1.50? £600m and a 20 point deduction!"

 

TBF if its transparent then it "could" be fair, 

 

Eg, whatever you spend over your limit, you put that same amount in a pot that gets shared by the other clubs 

[JonBez comesock]

Would be ideal for us 

 

if true 

if voted through 

 

it probably won’t though 

[Joe1984]

40 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

 

Liverpool, you have overspent by £600m in the last accounting period, what is your proposal for settlement? £1.50 yes that seems adequate, on you go rascals. Oh, Nottingham Forest, we see you went over your limit by £1.50? £600m and a 20 point deduction!"

And 10 points from Everton...