Pep / Man City

[Cronky]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65690461

 

This is a joke. Pep is asking for the issue of City and FFP to be dealt with as soon as possible, but he must know that his club's entire strategy so far has been to delay, obstruct and fail to co-operate with any investigation. There's every indication that this will continue.

 

Later on, he seems to hint that he might leave if City win the Champions League, despite also claiming loyalty to the club. It sounds like he might not fancy carrying on for another two seasons with the shadow of this investigation hanging over him in an ever more serious manner. There's just a hint here that he's breaking rank.

 

Some will consider this not sufficiently NUFC-related, but it's very important from the point of view of our club that the competition is regulated fairly and consistently for all. And Pep leaving would do our prospects no harm at all, of course.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Cronky

[r0cafella]

NWOAT

[Cronky]

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

NWOAT

 

What does that mean? I've had no luck googling it.

[Yorkie]

We do have threads for other clubs tbf.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

We do have threads for other clubs tbf.

We do but then we have to go search for them

[Danh1]

Hypocritical of Pep to whinge about wanting it done sooner; however, the Premier League can’t exactly complain about kicking the can down the road….

[andyman]

37 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

What does that mean? I've had no luck googling it.

 

Wild guess: Not worthy of a thread.

[Cronky]

10 minutes ago, andyman said:

 

Wild guess: Not worthy of a thread.

 

Thank you. Obviously I am of a different opinion, and the 'other clubs transfers' thread didn't seem the right place.

 

City now seem to be winning things without breaking sweat. They've given teams like Liverpool, Arsenal and Real a right hammering this season. Their second eleven is almost as good as their first, so the normal issue of injuries or fatigue doesn't affect them as the season goes on. If it's all the product of a genius manager then fair enough, that won't last for ever. But there are clear suspicions that they've not been playing by the same rules, and if so that has to be stopped or the competition will die a slow death.

[bealios]

The thing with Financial Fair Play is that it has absolutely got nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. It is to perpetuate the status quo. I have a major objection to the whole "playing by the same rules" statement, because it is different rules for different teams. 

 

Manchester United and Chelsea can carry a wage bill of £200m per year, but Brighton/Villa/Everton/Newcastle cannot. Despite the fact they can clearly afford it due to a willingness of owners to invest. That is the very definition of different rules for different teams. 

 

It has been branded "Financial Fair Play" and sold as a sustainability issue. But it has nothing to do with sustainability - otherwise why would they be investigating long high value sponsorship deals. If a sponsorship deal is potentially "above market" then surely that is extra money going to the club - not less. That's where the analysis falls away, and makes it clear that it has nothing to do with sustainability. It also makes the system horrendously complicated. 

 

You could make all of this so very easy. Set an annual expenditure cap (or rolling 3 year cap). Make it the same for every team, and review it every year. If there is a concern amongst players that this restricts wages etc. - then just set it high enough so it matches what the top teams would expect to pay. In England, set it at £300m, which is probably around where Chelsea land taking into account wages and amortised player trading. Anyone can spend £300m per year on wages and amortised player costs - so it is a level playing field. 

 

That might bring in a genuine sustainability concern around clubs who do not have owners willing to invest who might be tempted to over-stretch themselves - but again, that is easily dealt with. Cap contract lengths at 6 years, and any club who exceeds a certain turnover to operating expense percentage needs to justify on an annual basis that they have funding (from whatever source) to cover that expenditure for a period of 6 years. Most will operate within current rules anyway. Those who wish to grow/invest and challenge the top teams need to show that what they are doing is sustainable - so if Everton's owner was prepared to commit to an equity investment which would cover the shortfall over 6 years, it passes. If we convince ARAMCO to sponsor our shirt sleeves for £50m per year, then so be it - the club is sustainable. If ARAMCO pull out, there is enough time to bring that annual expenditure down to reflect any new financial restraints we are operating under. 

 

I've always thought this to be fair, it is just more difficult to make that argument now without appearing horrendously biased and self-interested.

 

 

[Cronky]

1 hour ago, bealios said:

The thing with Financial Fair Play is that it has absolutely got nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. It is to perpetuate the status quo. I have a major objection to the whole "playing by the same rules" statement, because it is different rules for different teams. 

 

Manchester United and Chelsea can carry a wage bill of £200m per year, but Brighton/Villa/Everton/Newcastle cannot. Despite the fact they can clearly afford it due to a willingness of owners to invest. That is the very definition of different rules for different teams. 

 

It has been branded "Financial Fair Play" and sold as a sustainability issue. But it has nothing to do with sustainability - otherwise why would they be investigating long high value sponsorship deals. If a sponsorship deal is potentially "above market" then surely that is extra money going to the club - not less. That's where the analysis falls away, and makes it clear that it has nothing to do with sustainability. It also makes the system horrendously complicated. 

 

You could make all of this so very easy. Set an annual expenditure cap (or rolling 3 year cap). Make it the same for every team, and review it every year. If there is a concern amongst players that this restricts wages etc. - then just set it high enough so it matches what the top teams would expect to pay. In England, set it at £300m, which is probably around where Chelsea land taking into account wages and amortised player trading. Anyone can spend £300m per year on wages and amortised player costs - so it is a level playing field. 

 

That might bring in a genuine sustainability concern around clubs who do not have owners willing to invest who might be tempted to over-stretch themselves - but again, that is easily dealt with. Cap contract lengths at 6 years, and any club who exceeds a certain turnover to operating expense percentage needs to justify on an annual basis that they have funding (from whatever source) to cover that expenditure for a period of 6 years. Most will operate within current rules anyway. Those who wish to grow/invest and challenge the top teams need to show that what they are doing is sustainable - so if Everton's owner was prepared to commit to an equity investment which would cover the shortfall over 6 years, it passes. If we convince ARAMCO to sponsor our shirt sleeves for £50m per year, then so be it - the club is sustainable. If ARAMCO pull out, there is enough time to bring that annual expenditure down to reflect any new financial restraints we are operating under. 

 

I've always thought this to be fair, it is just more difficult to make that argument now without appearing horrendously biased and self-interested.

 

 

 

By rules, I meant the formal restrictions that the system places on the clubs. If the rules aren't fair, then they should be changed. You can't allow one club to ignore them and gain an advantage on the clubs who are obeying them.

 

In terms of your cap on expenditure, that sounds okay, although it does sound a bit like one that would suit our club in particular, as you suggest. I think there would be a lot of difficulty in agreeing on a figure though. I imagine it would have to be set very high, in which case it might not make a lot of difference. I also wonder about a situation where a club's income is actually over the limit, due to wise long-term investment and good management. Shouldn't they be allowed to make use of such a genuine profit? We might run into legal issues there. As I say, to avoid that, the bar would need to be set very high.

 

I'm not as cynical as you about the purposes of the current system. It's there to attack financial doping by owners, and the dangers of allowing it to go unchecked run through all parts of the system - not just the top of the Premiership. If one club is over-spending by those means, that puts pressure on the other owners in their division to take financial risks to match them. And what happens when that owner can no longer sustain that investment, as often happens? One or both of Everton and Leicester will go down this season, and that will spell trouble. Investment has to be sustainable in the long-term. Clubs are not just private businesses, they are also institutions of importance in a community and need to be managed carefully.

 

The issue that I think really does need addressing is the large gap in income that exists between the UCL clubs and the rest of the Premiership, and between the Premiership and the Championship. The rewards of getting in the top four or getting promotion, and vice versa the risks of missing out on Europe or getting relegated, are so great that owners are pressured to take huge risks which put the future of their clubs in jeopardy.