Football club finances / FFP

[Jatz]

Haha ok.

You can disagree but the fact it was dismissed on a legal technicality proves that's right.

May not pass the pub test but as the premier league just found out, that counts for nothing.

 

[SM]

You can disagree but the fact it was dismissed on a legal technicality proves that's right.

May not pass the pub test but as the premier league just found out, that counts for nothing.

Which is why I called it bizarre. The law is a funny thing and just because it was passed by a court as being a valid argument does not make it fact or right it means the argument was compelling enough to satisfy that court.

 

[moomba]

Also for the 3 year period in which Leicester breached PSR they were a PL club for all but two weeks of that period. Any reasonable person would assess that to putting them under the PL's jurisdiction. The ruling is just bizarre.

If the Premier League didn't specify that a club stays under their jurisdiction, then they simply don't.

Badly drafted rules, and a big cockup by the league.

 

[Jatz]

Which is why I called it bizarre. The law is a funny thing and just because it was passed by a court as being a valid argument does not make it fact or right it means the argument was compelling enough to satisfy that court.

Why would you use the pub test to base that on though? Like I said, the premier league have just discovered that writing rules is very different than trying to rule with a 'vibe'.

May not make it right, I struggle to see how it doesn't make it fact...the fact is that we were found not to have to answer the case based on the rules they'd written. That's fact.

 

[SM]

If the Premier League didn't specify that a club stays under their jurisdiction, then they simply don't.

Badly drafted rules, and a big cockup by the league.

Yes there needs to be an independent body that all professional clubs in England are governed by to avoid these 'gaps' in membership if a 2 week period in a 156 week period is going to be the difference between being guilty or not.

 

[SM]

Why would you use the pub test to base that on though? Like I said, the premier league have just discovered that writing rules is very different than trying to rule with a 'vibe'.

May not make it right, I struggle to see how it doesn't make it fact...the fact is that we were found not to have to answer the case based on the rules they'd written. That's fact.

They haven't just discovered this, this is how yourselves and QPR previously got out of any material punishment (if you recall, I actually cited that case while you were concerned about getting a 10+ points deduction for these charges).

And like I said, haha ok. If you think that's what a fact is then all power to you. It's a loophole and that's all it is.

 

[Sphynx]

Lol what? Based on what?

We’ve had big transfers go out over the last 24 months.

View attachment 2105794

There’s Leicester, just out there destroying football

Whats your net spend over 5 years got to do with your reportable loss from last season? Most of that has already been reported revenue in previous accounts.

You posted a £153m operating loss (of which was a £66m loss of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) and then offset it with £74m in player sales for 22/23.

You sold a net positive of £60m in players in last seasons transfer periods, which is less than that year.

Based on the same operating losses (Even with relegation wage clauses), the massive drop in revenue between the PL and EFL (even with parachute payments), the same huge transfer fee's still being amortized in that OL, the over/under line will easily be -£100m for Leicester.

You sold less players than the previous year, you will earn less and your costs vs revenue are higher as a PL club who's wage restructure NEVER keeps a % pace with revenue reductions.

How could it not be a bigger loss? Which was a -£89m net loss even after all the no doubt fancy accounting fudging in those books.

Leicester broke pretty much every PL PSR rule on the way down, they would have smashed the EFL financial rules in the process and escaped by the fact they got promoted and that gap year prevented the PL from penalizing them in the Championship and it wasn't long enough for the EFL to demand accounts as they hadn't spent a full reporting period as a member club yet.

 

[moomba]

Lol what? Based on what?

We’ve had big transfers go out over the last 24 months.

View attachment 2105794

There’s Leicester, just out there destroying football

This is the whole issue with the rules for me.

How are you meant to compete with the clubs at the top, and earn the financial rewards that those clubs at the top get, while you're restricted from spending as much as them.

The current rules are so anti competitive and so unsporting, and it's good now that most football supporters are starting to see them for what they are.

 

[moomba]

Yes there needs to be an independent body that all professional clubs in England are governed by to avoid these 'gaps' in membership if a 2 week period in a 156 week period is going to be the difference between being guilty or not.

Makes sense, although I think the whole rules need to be re-thought anyway.

 

[Jatz]

This is the whole issue with the rules for me.

How are you meant to compete with the clubs at the top, and earn the financial rewards that those clubs at the top get, while you're restricted from spending as much as them.

The current rules are so anti competitive and so unsporting, and it's good now that most football supporters are starting to see them for what they are.

The short answer is, you're not.

I think it'll end up costing them supporters. It was difficult enough before anyway but the odds of another Leicester are just astronomical now.

 

[SM]

Makes sense, although I think the whole rules need to be re-thought anyway.

They are aren't they?

 

[Sphynx]

This is the whole issue with the rules for me.

How are you meant to compete with the clubs at the top, and earn the financial rewards that those clubs at the top get, while you're restricted from spending as much as them.

The current rules are so anti competitive and so unsporting, and it's good now that most football supporters are starting to see them for what they are.

Facepalm isn't quite justification for what I did when I read that.

The better question is, how about some of the PL clubs actually spend what they are capable of earning rather than what is floated into their revenue statements from state coffers, dodgy property transfers, sponsorship deals from state back companies far exceeding any commercial benefit for that brand, billionaire play things throwing in 4-5 different leveraged loans, bogus player sales .... etc etc


The problem with current football is, you have legitimate football clubs operating in competition and under financial rules with what may as well be Alice of Wonderland.


PSR hasn't changed a damn thing, in fact it's only made it worse. But not in the way you have described.


You have the billionaire play things and plastic franchise clubs still operating as if PSR doesn't exist. They simply manufacture revenue via way of shitty £20m-£30m transfers for youth players, they buy players via sister companies and then purchase under market value cough Savinho cough. They sell the stadium, then buy it back. There's 100 ways to do this when only working with accounting book values.

They "buy" accounting leverage within their books by amortizing intangible assets (players as intangible assets ffs..) and then offset it by immediate revenue via way of 100 ridiculously unrealistic examples.

If these clubs actually had to rely on their youth academies (and no, not the youth Man City hoovers up from other clubs at 16) and were only able to spend based on their real revenue and market demand, not inflated, manufactured book revenue each season, I imagine the strength of the pyramid would look entirely different.

Yet it's working the complete opposite. These same clubs with manufactured revenue, are able to maintain TV and revenue and competition prize money, despite racking up huge debt, creative vast swaths of book value room in their PSR reporting, then go and buy all the best young players from clubs within the same pyramid, who are trying to abide by the same rules, but without the ridiculously dodgy revenue practices.


No, the solution isn't unlimited spending from Arab and American Billionaires. It's cutting the rot out at the top of the PL first and foremost and actually enforce a new (far more strict) PSR reporting model surrounding revenue.

If that fails, a non-tiered salary cap is probably the way to go. Then everyone is on the same playing field. It's still going to be far greater than 99% of clubs in world football spend, it might actually prevent continental clubs from just slapping 30%-50% additional onto a transfer fee when an English club is involved.

 

[SM]

Facepalm isn't quite justification for what I did when I read that.

The better question is, how about some of the PL clubs actually spend what they are capable of earning rather than what is floated into their revenue statements from state coffers, dodgy property transfers, sponsorship deals from state back companies far exceeding any commercial benefit for that brand, billionaire play things throwing in 4-5 different leveraged loans, bogus player sales .... etc etc


The problem with current football is, you have legitimate football clubs operating in competition and under financial rules with what may as well be Alice of Wonderland.


PSR hasn't changed a damn thing, in fact it's only made it worse. But not in the way you have described.


You have the billionaire play things and plastic franchise clubs still operating as if PSR doesn't exist. They simply manufacture revenue via way of shitty £20m-£30m transfers for youth players, they buy players via sister companies and then purchase under market value cough Savinho cough. They sell the stadium, then buy it back. There's 100 ways to do this when only working with accounting book values.

They "buy" accounting leverage within their books by amortizing intangible assets (players as intangible assets ffs..) and then offset it by immediate revenue via way of 100 ridiculously unrealistic examples.

If these clubs actually had to rely on their youth academies (and no, not the youth Man City hoovers up from other clubs at 16) and were only able to spend based on their real revenue and market demand, not inflated, manufactured book revenue each season, I imagine the strength of the pyramid would look entirely different.

Yet it's working the complete opposite. These same clubs with manufactured revenue, are able to maintain TV and revenue and competition prize money, despite racking up huge debt, creative vast swaths of book value room in their PSR reporting, then go and buy all the best young players from clubs within the same pyramid, who are trying to abide by the same rules, but without the ridiculously dodgy revenue practices.


No, the solution isn't unlimited spending from Arab and American Billionaires. It's cutting the rot out at the top of the PL first and foremost and actually enforce a new (far more strict) PSR reporting model surrounding revenue.

If that fails, a non-tiered salary cap is probably the way to go. Then everyone is on the same playing field. It's still going to be far greater than 99% of clubs in world football spend, it might actually prevent continental clubs from just slapping 30%-50% additional onto a transfer fee when an English club is involved.

One thing in what you're saying - the players themselves aren't the intangible assets, it's the player registrations.

 

[moomba]

Tl;Dr.

 

[Sphynx]

Tl;Dr.

It's OK.

You were clearly completely confused by the issue anyway.

 

[moomba]

It's OK.

You were clearly completely confused by the issue anyway.

Cool story.

 

[Bostonian]

This is the whole issue with the rules for me.

How are you meant to compete with the clubs at the top, and earn the financial rewards that those clubs at the top get, while you're restricted from spending as much as them.

The current rules are so anti competitive and so unsporting, and it's good now that most football supporters are starting to see them for what they are.

Is it about competing or is it about making clubs more financially responsible so there are less incidences of clubs going into financial free fall and getting winding up orders?

 

[moomba]

Is it about competing or is it about making clubs more financially responsible so there are less incidences of clubs going into financial free fall and getting winding up orders?

It's about competing imo.

You can lose money and make your club stronger. You can also make a profit and make your club weaker.

I believe you can have rules that safeguard clubs without destroying the competitiveness of the league.

 

[Zidane98]

113m loss announced on 23/24 books for Utd. Cant imagine much of that loss is FFP deductible (infrastructure / youf) for PSR compliance.


Unless they sell a lot they are going to be restricted in next summer's transfer window significantly.

 

[Zidane98]

More info here

Manchester United confident on financial fair play despite £113m loss

Manchester United believe they comply with Premier League and Uefa financial rules despite the £113.2m net loss in their latest accounts

www.theguardian.com

47m spent on a strategic review? **** me. I need to charge more for my yearly reviews at work!


Says they've committed 50m to a redevelopment of Carrington but that will surely be spread across multiple accounting periods.

 

[RossFC]

More info here

Manchester United confident on financial fair play despite £113m loss

Manchester United believe they comply with Premier League and Uefa financial rules despite the £113.2m net loss in their latest accounts

www.theguardian.com

47m spent on a strategic review? **** me. I need to charge more for my yearly reviews at work!


Says they've committed 50m to a redevelopment of Carrington but that will surely be spread across multiple accounting periods.

What's their total debt?

 

[Zidane98]

What's their total debt?

Not sure on debt. Bojan KantKick would be all over that figure.


Debt isn't an issue, it's the interest payments that is.

 

[moomba]

 

[Bradesmaen]

Man United might get relegated if they get a points deduction with EtH in charge/the poor buys.

 

[moomba]