Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Guest]

Leicester broke FFP (I think?) in The Championship to get promoted 2 years before their title too. 

[Paully]

 

[Nucasol]

[HawK]

That's a sizable jump, hopefully we should be able to maintain that with the Adidas deal coming in to offset the lack of CL next year.

 

The growth won't be fast enough for some but with all the red tape being chucked at us I don't think we're doing too bad. 

[FloydianMag]

27 minutes ago, HawK said:

That's a sizable jump, hopefully we should be able to maintain that with the Adidas deal coming in to offset the lack of CL next year.

 

The growth won't be fast enough for some but with all the red tape being chucked at us I don't think we're doing too bad. 

We’d be fools to think they’re stopped bringing in even stricter rules, the only way is to bring the fucking lot tumbling down.

[Mase]

On 15/02/2024 at 09:35, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

City are tying the PL in legal knots, they have no real desire to challenge FFP knowing they will win in court if and when needed.

 

Everton don't really have a leg to stand on as they blatantly played a game with FFP expecting the PL to roll over. They can only challenge the concept of it which may be tricky and take a long time

 

We have no real appetite to be the ones challenging it, I think we know that any challenge by us would just result in other rules being put in their place

 

Forest, as above have a real tangible challenge on how the FFP rules contravene competition law and also go against the principles of why transfer windows remain post Bosman. They'll appeal first and then challenge the rules in court if needed. The worry with this (for the likes of us) is that the PL buckle under appeal and make a soft provision for sales and purchases within the summer transfer window which lets Forest off the hook but does no good to anyone else

Our 115 charges aren’t just related to FFP - some of them are from just before FFP came into play. There’s charges relating to the length of the grass being too long! 
 

One of the charges was written incorrectly when the Premier League published them - which City’s lawyers caught straight away and the League had to backtrack and change the charge. It’s amateur stuff!
 

As you rightly say, we’ve (City) got the PL tied up in legal knots because, contrary to the average brain dead football fan sheep, this isn’t just about points deduction, fines or relegation - this is people potentially doing time in prison for tax evasion. If found guilty it would have to involve the Government and HMRC. 
 

The fact is, the PL last February were pushed by the red teams into charging us quickly thinking it would derail our challenge against Arsenal - it did the opposite. And now the dust has settled they’ve realised what a huge issue they have on their hands. 
 

I don’t for one minute think City are squeaky clean. But at the same time I don’t think we’ve done anything the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Chelsea etc haven’t done over the years. Look at United’s world record deal with US owned/based Chevrolet the other year. Crazy unheard of numbers at the time and then the guys at Chevrolet that gave the deal the green light get sacked and Chevrolet are were in serious financial trouble. 

 

They just don’t want a non-US owned club taking their power. 
 

The more competition the better for the league - the likes of yourselves, Villa, Everton etc, these are the clubs you want to see getting money pumped into them and challenging. You guys last season, Villa this season. It’s good to see. But if that means it pushes Liverpool and United further down - we saw in 2013 the exec for the PL say publicly that Man United’s poor form isn’t good for the league, we had Masters a few weeks ago refer to Everton and Forest as “small clubs”, they’re desperate to protect the red teams. 

 

Hopefully the other teams will wake up soon and see what’s going on. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Mase said:

Our 115 charges aren’t just related to FFP - some of them are from just before FFP came into play. There’s charges relating to the length of the grass being too long! 
 

One of the charges was written incorrectly when the Premier League published them - which City’s lawyers caught straight away and the League had to backtrack and change the charge. It’s amateur stuff!
 

As you rightly say, we’ve (City) got the PL tied up in legal knots because, contrary to the average brain dead football fan sheep, this isn’t just about points deduction, fines or relegation - this is people potentially doing time in prison for tax evasion. If found guilty it would have to involve the Government and HMRC. 
 

The fact is, the PL last February were pushed by the red teams into charging us quickly thinking it would derail our challenge against Arsenal - it did the opposite. And now the dust has settled they’ve realised what a huge issue they have on their hands. 
 

I don’t for one minute think City are squeaky clean. But at the same time I don’t think we’ve done anything the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Chelsea etc haven’t done over the years. Look at United’s world record deal with US owned/based Chevrolet the other year. Crazy unheard of numbers at the time and then the guys at Chevrolet that gave the deal the green light get sacked and Chevrolet are were in serious financial trouble. 

 

They just don’t want a non-US owned club taking their power. 
 

The more competition the better for the league - the likes of yourselves, Villa, Everton etc, these are the clubs you want to see getting money pumped into them and challenging. You guys last season, Villa this season. It’s good to see. But if that means it pushes Liverpool and United further down - we saw in 2013 the exec for the PL say publicly that Man United’s poor form isn’t good for the league, we had Masters a few weeks ago refer to Everton and Forest as “small clubs”, they’re desperate to protect the red teams. 

 

Hopefully the other teams will wake up soon and see what’s going on. 

Richard Masters referring to Everton as a ‘small club’ was a fucking disgrace, mind.  

[Mase]

32 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Richard Masters referring to Everton as a ‘small club’ was a fucking disgrace, mind.  

Even Forest - a club that’s been in the lower leagues for some years but traditionally a top top club. 
 

 

[duo]

True Geordie just made a good point in one if his videos - pointing out that Man U are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, and we are the richest club in the world.  Yet it is Man U that are allowed to spend and not us.  When you say it like that it really shows how corrupt current rules are.

 

 

Edited February 20 by duo

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, duo said:

True Geordie just made a good point in one if his videos - pointing out that Man U are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, and we are the richest club in the world.  Yet it is Man U than are allowed to spend and not us.  When you say it like that it really shows how corrupt current rules are.

1bn in debt isn’t it?

[madras]

13 minutes ago, duo said:

True Geordie just made a good point in one if his videos - pointing out that Man U are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, and we are the richest club in the world.  Yet it is Man U than are allowed to spend and not us.  When you say it like that it really shows how corrupt current rules are.

There was a thing on twitter the other day from an Everton site saying exactly that, alluding to Man Utd's debt but it's the club with the richest owners who have to sell.

 

It's almost as if it's deliberately set up to be that way.

[duo]

It highlights the lunacy of the current rules. 

[Mattoon]

On 18/02/2024 at 10:42, Mase said:

Our 115 charges aren’t just related to FFP - some of them are from just before FFP came into play. There’s charges relating to the length of the grass being too long! 
 

One of the charges was written incorrectly when the Premier League published them - which City’s lawyers caught straight away and the League had to backtrack and change the charge. It’s amateur stuff!
 

As you rightly say, we’ve (City) got the PL tied up in legal knots because, contrary to the average brain dead football fan sheep, this isn’t just about points deduction, fines or relegation - this is people potentially doing time in prison for tax evasion. If found guilty it would have to involve the Government and HMRC. 
 

The fact is, the PL last February were pushed by the red teams into charging us quickly thinking it would derail our challenge against Arsenal - it did the opposite. And now the dust has settled they’ve realised what a huge issue they have on their hands. 
 

I don’t for one minute think City are squeaky clean. But at the same time I don’t think we’ve done anything the likes of Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Chelsea etc haven’t done over the years. Look at United’s world record deal with US owned/based Chevrolet the other year. Crazy unheard of numbers at the time and then the guys at Chevrolet that gave the deal the green light get sacked and Chevrolet are were in serious financial trouble. 

 

They just don’t want a non-US owned club taking their power. 
 

The more competition the better for the league - the likes of yourselves, Villa, Everton etc, these are the clubs you want to see getting money pumped into them and challenging. You guys last season, Villa this season. It’s good to see. But if that means it pushes Liverpool and United further down - we saw in 2013 the exec for the PL say publicly that Man United’s poor form isn’t good for the league, we had Masters a few weeks ago refer to Everton and Forest as “small clubs”, they’re desperate to protect the red teams. 

 

Hopefully the other teams will wake up soon and see what’s going on. 

 

This is exactly it, scared that other teams could "buy" the league but the glaring irony is that's how its always been. The reality is the red teams want to be the last ones that were able to buy the league before it got too expensive to keep up for these American owners.

 

As I alluded to in another post, for these owners it's not so much about the glory of the competition but about maintaining their membership at the most prestigious table so that they can continue to reap the financial benefits to fill their pockets. They're established and world renowned so they're guaranteed the best sponsorships, kit deals, etc... they don't want to fall off the map and watch that dwindle away, nor have to split the pie into more pieces.

 

As noted, Manchester United have £1b in debt, but it's serviceable with their income, the owners can line their pockets with circa £100m a year and still keep the wolves at bay, they would be royally screwed if teams around them could spend unfettered.

[Mag3.14]

3 minutes ago, duo said:

It highlights the lunacy of the current rules. 

 

Just a shame the  FFP rules are on losses within a FY and not overall debt, otherwise they'd be well and truely fecked!  Its said they've paid around £900m in interest charges in 18 years servicing the loans needed for takeover purchase in 2005 (£780m). So thats £50m/year on average on favourable interest rates - be interesting to see how they cope now with the increase in rates overall ... 

[TheBrownBottle]

6 hours ago, duo said:

True Geordie just made a good point in one if his videos - pointing out that Man U are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, and we are the richest club in the world.  Yet it is Man U that are allowed to spend and not us.  When you say it like that it really shows how corrupt current rules are.

 

 

 

We’re not the ‘richest club in the world’ by any metric.  The PIF isn’t the same even as Abu Dhabi’s ownership of Man City or Qatar’s of PSG.  

 

We’ve known since the takeover that this wouldn’t look remotely like Man City.  What’s happening is that the likes of ‘True Geordie’ are just realising what most of us realised two and a half years ago - that there are significant constraints which we’ll be operating within.  The PIF either knew about them beforehand - in which case it suits their plans - or they didn’t, and they’re thicker than Ashley when it comes to due diligence.  

[Mazzy]

When are these new rules coming in? Before the summer window? From what I've seen/heard we'll not be any better off under the new FFP structure than we are currently.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We’re not the ‘richest club in the world’ by any metric.  The PIF isn’t the same even as Abu Dhabi’s ownership of Man City or Qatar’s of PSG.  

 

We’ve known since the takeover that this wouldn’t look remotely like Man City.  What’s happening is that the likes of ‘True Geordie’ are just realising what most of us realised two and a half years ago - that there are significant constraints which we’ll be operating within.  The PIF either knew about them beforehand - in which case it suits their plans - or they didn’t, and they’re thicker than Ashley when it comes to due diligence.  

 

PIF, Staveley, etc would have surely had a say on what went out in our documentary last year, because in that, Shearer as narrator often referred to us as being the "richest club in the world". I doubt we'd have let them put that out there if we weren't happy for them to go with it?

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

PIF, Staveley, etc would have surely had a say on what went out in our documentary last year, because in that, Shearer as narrator often referred to us as being the "richest club in the world". I doubt we'd have let them put that out there if we weren't happy for them to go with it?

They can sell any narrative they want, doesn’t make it anymore true.  Mike Ashley is a billionaire, but we weren’t a billion pound club. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Mazzy said:

When are these new rules coming in? Before the summer window? From what I've seen/heard we'll not be any better off under the new FFP structure than we are currently.

Next season.  Given UEFA’s rules from next season (and especially the season after) the club are going to need to pull their finger out re commercials and matchday income.  I hard to picture how exactly we catch up with Spurs at the moment without a new ground and some serious sponsorship money  

[duo]

The point still stands though in that Man U are hundreds of millions in debt and we're not. Yet its Man U who are allowed to spend.

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Next season.  Given UEFA’s rules from next season (and especially the season after) the club are going to need to pull their finger out re commercials and matchday income.  I hard to picture how exactly we catch up with Spurs at the moment without a new ground and some serious sponsorship money  

The only way is to challenge FMV especially at CAT. Such action was threatened at the PL meeting earlier this month and it will be interesting if such a challenge materialises.

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

The only way is to challenge FMV especially at CAT. Such action was threatened at the PL meeting earlier this month and it will be interesting if such a challenge materialises.

FMV is the biggest issue, it has to be said.  I’d have a bit less of a problem with it if it was administered via an independent arbiter.  It’s so obviously fixed at the moment its disgraceful 

[brummie]

If part of the aim of all this were really to in some way 'level up' then the measures would not just be entirely financial.

 

FFP only addresses one part of the picture, and does it with all the subtlety and nuance of a sledgehammer. It just reinforces the more powerful clubs where they are.

 

It should really be accompanies by other rules which are more nuanced than spending limits, controls of transfer activity which go beyond that.

 

I don't know what the exact answer is, but there's a fucking massive irony in the fact that the way things are at the moment, the only way ambitious well funded and supported teams can really function is to constantly sell their best players to the big 5 (I'm not including Spurs in that, for a reason).

[TheBrownBottle]

18 minutes ago, brummie said:

If part of the aim of all this were really to in some way 'level up' then the measures would not just be entirely financial.

 

FFP only addresses one part of the picture, and does it with all the subtlety and nuance of a sledgehammer. It just reinforces the more powerful clubs where they are.

 

It should really be accompanies by other rules which are more nuanced than spending limits, controls of transfer activity which go beyond that.

 

I don't know what the exact answer is, but there's a fucking massive irony in the fact that the way things are at the moment, the only way ambitious well funded and supported teams can really function is to constantly sell their best players to the big 5 (I'm not including Spurs in that, for a reason).

I’ve always believed that the solution would be to limit investment as a proportion of income, inversely proportional to existing income, using the club with the highest income as a cap.  So you cap Man City’s current owner losses to say 5% of income, which if their income is £700m would be £35m (roughly what the current FFP guidelines are), but you might allow the club with the 17th highest income the ability to have 100% owner losses.  So if the 17th highest club has an income of £100m, their owner can invest another £100m.  Alternatively you could have caps entirely income-dependent and not relative to each other - so perhaps a £500m bar with no allowable losses above £25m (5% of £500m, but no additional millions allowable above it - so a club with a £600m income can still only lose £25m), and grade it down - so perhaps £400m clubs you’re looking at 10%, £300m you’re looking at 25%, £200m you’re looking at 50%, £100m at 100% etc.  That would allow owners to grow any club, but investment growth would slow the higher actual income becomes.  
 

Probably a shite idea, but that would be my fix. 

 

 

Edited February 20 by TheBrownBottle

[brummie]

I'd just force Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United to have a number of their team play in randomly selected specialist footwear.

 

Clogs

Crocks

Espedrilles

Uggs 

 

That'd level things out a bit.

 

For De Bruyne, mind, might have to be manacles.