NUFC specific FFP/PSR discussion

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

I don't really know the purpose of the Commercial Team? We all know that to grow initially we'll need inflated deals by PIF-related companies like Man City did in the past That's the whole rationale when people on here complain about the related-parties FFP rules.

 

It's only when we're established at the top of the table that we'll be able to switch to real sponsors willing to pay for big deals. Maybe the Commercial Team is in place now for when we get to that stage? 

 

I might sound harsh but all our major sponsors are Saudi companies that would have literally taken one call from someone at PIF to put in place. I even wouldn't be surprised if our Adidas deal isn't somehow indirectly linked to Adidas sponsoring most Saudi League teams now (favour for a favour). 

 

Their only "notable" achievement is the Stack. 

 

Again, I respectfully disagree. "Real" sponsors (sick) will come when our overall profile is consistently one of a club qualifying for Champions League or other European competitions. I also don't think it is valid to suggest Middle Eastern or even SA sponsors cannot be real. Obviously us being PIF owned has raised our profile in that part of the world, making us a more attractive prospective partner to companies that operate in that part of the world. I understand some of this stuff could be turbocharged in ways PSG and Man City have done in the past, but there is also a natural progression. A club doing well and having an affiliation with a certain demography and demographic is more likely to attract sponsorship than a club aiming driftlessly as we have done before the takeover. As such, to suggest the commercial team is only here for when we make the big time is nonsensical as their efforts are vital to us ever making the big time in the first place.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

The rules were brought in to stop us. You think if we did a chelsea we'd get away with it? 

We had to mount legal challenges, we’ve chosen not to far. Why haven’t we? Nobody knows are we ok with the rules? A lot of unasked questions if we are keeping it a buck. 

[gjohnson]

Essentially we've fallen into a barrel of tits and come up sucking our own thumb

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

We had to mount legal challenges, we’ve chosen not to far. Why haven’t we? Nobody knows are we ok with the rules? A lot of unasked questions if we are keeping it a buck. 

 

I'd guess because litigation is only really a good option if you're gonna win. 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Again, I respectfully disagree. "Real" sponsors (sick) will come when our overall profile is consistently one of a club qualifying for Champions League or other European competitions. I also don't think it is valid to suggest Middle Eastern or even SA sponsors cannot be real. Obviously us being PIF owned has raised our profile in that part of the world, making us a more attractive prospective partner to companies that operate in that part of the world. I understand some of this stuff could be turbocharged in ways PSG and Man City have done in the past, but there is also a natural progression. A club doing well and having an affiliation with a certain demography and demographic is more likely to attract sponsorship than a club aiming driftlessly as we have done before the takeover. As such, to suggest the commercial team is only here for when we make the big time is nonsensical as their efforts are vital to us ever making the big time in the first place.

Uh please, it’s quite simple in order to grow we need to invest and in order to invest we need to grow. We are trapped in a cycle which we can’t get out of due to the rules of the league. Nobody is going to sponsor us for what they could sponsor man united for. So with such a situation how do we close the gap ?

[r0cafella]

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

 

I'd guess because litigation is only really a good option if you're gonna win. 

Which means catching up is an almost impossible task. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Which means catching up is an almost impossible task. 

 

Yeah. There will have to be no small amount of innovation. 

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m aware of how it stacks up - and our commercial revenue won’t go up by 50% this year never mind year on year. 
 

You need to look into how those commercial revenues are made up.  Arsenal are the lowest of them - their ground and shirt sponsorship are £50m per year (our deal is already done - for half this); their adidas deal is £60m per season (almost double ours); sleeve sponsorship £10m - so there’s £120m of those commercial revenues.  So the remainder is around £50m - these are the other partnering and commercial deals, or around 30% of the total commercial revenue.  If we managed to get deals in line with this, then our commercial revenues would cap out at around £100m.

 

The other problem is that ‘becoming more attractive’ requires success on the pitch at a minimum - and to do this, you need to be able to sign top players.  But we’re hampered by the inability to boost income to allow this to happen.

 

Which is why something quite dramatic needs to occur - ‘organic’ growth from here would require either perfect decision making or perfect luck. 

 

Mate, commercial revenue grew 66% last financial year (and that was before Sela and Adidas). I think you may be confusing commercial revenue and overall revenue. The potential to increase our commercial revenue is massive.

 

As for the point of the rules hampering our ascension to the top, I am well aware of that as I am sure you know. Still, if we are to compete with the likes of Arsenal it will have to be through over-achievement on the pitch (so far so good despite a hickup last season) and bringing in improved and new commercial deals that will allow our owners (under these wretched rules) to invest into the squad to keep the over-achievement going.

 

None of that is highly controversial or revelatory is it?

 

 

Edited August 30 by Unbelievable

[r0cafella]

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

 

Yeah. There will have to be no small amount of innovation. 

Absolutely; and the only innovation which is possible IF the stated goal is to be believed is to trade our best players aggressively and boy does that absolutely blow. 
 

 

[Unbelievable]

6 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Uh please, it’s quite simple in order to grow we need to invest and in order to invest we need to grow. We are trapped in a cycle which we can’t get out of due to the rules of the league. Nobody is going to sponsor us for what they could sponsor man united for. So with such a situation how do we close the gap ?

Over-achieving, as we have been doing in the past 2-3 years. Unless the rules change it's the only way, and truth be told I'd much prefer if we succeeded that way than Chelsea or Man City style even if it is bound to take a lot more time.

[gjohnson]

5 minutes ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

 

I'd guess because litigation is only really a good option if you're gonna win. 

There's only ever one winner when litigation starts, and that's only ever the lawyers.

 

Look at this Man City stuff. How long has it been going on, and how long is it likely to? Either they've broke the rules or they haven't, no matter how blurry they might have made things (although blurring thing does suggest something they don't want easily found or proved, but that's beside the point)

 

Their case will keep a law firm in business for years, but can guarantee no-one will be happy with the outcome if there ever is one

[r0cafella]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

Over-achieving, as we have been doing in the past 2-3 years. Unless the rules change it's the only way, and truth be told I'd much prefer if we succeeded that way than Chelsea or Man City style even if it is bound to take a lot more time.

It isn’t enough man, this is the point we’ve over achieved since Howe came in yet we were 70m short. That’s with as you mentioned a nice FFP headroom to play with, no we are out of headroom and essentially at a glass ceiling with revenue a long way short of those we wish to disrupt. 
 

If we aren’t growing at a faster rate than those clubs we are falling further and further behind which is obviously compounding the issue we face. 
 

I understand the outlook of these clubs make x we have a lot of growth but I don’t see us ever being same to close the gap under the current rules. 

[gbandit]

Man, the damage Ashley did to this club is absurd

[Vinny Green Balls]

1 minute ago, gbandit said:

Man, the damage Ashley did to this club is absurd

He left it in a terribly leprous state.

[Unbelievable]

The way I see it there is no such thing as the "big six". Twenty years ago we would have been part of such a group and you would have laughed at the suggestion of Man City leading the pack. If we manage to get/keep a foothold in the top of the PL that means other clubs drop out of those positions and will become less attractive to prospective sponsors. It will be exceedingly hard, and the board absolutely is stacked against us, but things are not set in stone and I have complete trust in our owners and managers to have us continue to overachieve.

[Vinny Green Balls]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

The way I see it there is no such thing as the "big six". Twenty years ago we would have been part of such a group and you would have laughed at the suggestion of Man City leading the pack. If we manage to get/keep a foothold in the top of the PL that means other clubs drop out of those positions and will become less attractive to prospective sponsors. It will be exceedingly hard, and the board absolutely is stacked against us, but things are not set in stone and I have complete trust in our owners and managers to have us continue to overachieve.

Well said, buddy.

 

Adults allow others some leeway when it comes to mistakes. As long as they have learned from this summer, I am more than happy to give them a chance to continue to improve us.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

The way I see it there is no such thing as the "big six". Twenty years ago we would have been part of such a group and you would have laughed at the suggestion of Man City leading the pack. If we manage to get/keep a foothold in the top of the PL that means other clubs drop out of those positions and will become less attractive to prospective sponsors. It will be exceedingly hard, and the board absolutely is stacked against us, but things are not set in stone and I have complete trust in our owners and managers to have us continue to overachieve.

20 years ago such financial rules didn’t exist mind, times have moved on and the league has been stitched up. Man united haven’t been competitive since Ferguson yet they have some of the largest revenues in the world. They are grandfathered in and the ladder has been kicked down. 
 

And yes, I agree things could change but I certainly wouldn’t be counting on it. 

[timeEd32]

I think we all generally agree on the state of play. There's just a wide range in what that means for our outlook.

 

I am somewhere closer to Unbelievable on the @r0cafella to @Unbelievable optimism continuum, but as I posted in the Mitchell thread we have a very big 12 months coming up starting on Sunday.

[Unbelievable]

18 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

20 years ago such financial rules didn’t exist mind, times have moved on and the league has been stitched up. Man united haven’t been competitive since Ferguson yet they have some of the largest revenues in the world. They are grandfathered in and the ladder has been kicked down. 
 

And yes, I agree things could change but I certainly wouldn’t be counting on it. 

In 20 years these rules also won’t exist anymore. A lot of things will be very different. Hopefully by then we will have some trophies in our cabinet.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

In 20 years these rules also won’t exist anymore. A lot of things will be very different. Hopefully by then we will have some trophies in our cabinet.

What makes you think that? It would require a shift In the makeup of the leagues ownership. 

[Unbelievable]

Just now, r0cafella said:

What makes you think that? It would require a shift In the makeup of the leagues ownership. 

For one because I think the PL will soon realise they’ve fallen behind La Liga and Real Madrid in particular, with these rules hurting their own competition. Even the likes of Liverpool and Man U are starting to complain (as it restricts them too), so sooner or later this ruleset will be cast aside, be it through legal challenge or for competitive reasons.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

For one because I think the PL will soon realise they’ve fallen behind La Liga and Real Madrid in particular, with these rules hurting their own competition. Even the likes of Liverpool and Man U are starting to complain (as it restricts them too), so sooner or later this ruleset will be cast aside, be it through legal challenge or for competitive reasons.

Fair, I think la Liga have stricter rules than what we have mind. I do agree wholeheartedly these rules are hurting our competitiveness they are very much based upon clubs looking backwards and not forwards. 
 

These rules being thrown in the bin would bring forth the second unknown I have which is how invested are the Saudis in this, so far I’m personally using the stadium as a proxy signal to draw my own conclusions. 

[TheBrownBottle]

It should be remembered that all European clubs will be adhering to UEFA’s FFP rules going forwards.  There is no indication that they’re going anywhere.

 

The hope would be that the PSR and VFM shite is torn up - if not, we’re whistling.  

[macphisto]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Glad to set people coming into contact with reality. The rules have fucked US and we’ve done nothing to challenge them. It’s pretty much the start and the end of things. 

I'm almost at the point where I wonder if PIF like these rules being in place as they don't have to spend huge amounts of money and they don't lose face by not competing at the top of the table. 

 

 

[Unbelievable]

7 hours ago, macphisto said:

I'm almost at the point where I wonder if PIF like these rules being in place as they don't have to spend huge amounts of money and they don't lose face by not competing at the top of the table. 

 

 

SA’s standing in the world is far more important to them than NUFC. Don’t you think it matters for their reputation that they are perceived as playing by the book rather than throwing the book aside and opening a massive can of worms politically? I am sure behind the scenes we are working hard to get these rules changed, but our owners cannot be seen as the disruptors who cheated and simply bought the league.