Exactly! How can spending borrowed (interest-incurring) money be more 'sustainable' than using internal investment?Because they’ll just get a massive loan and if it’s within what they can pay a month it’s fine!
The bottom tweet
Caught my eye.
I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.
To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?
So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…
Never mind that. What about all of the German corporations that hold shares in clubs they sponsor? Bayern Munich have the highest commercial income in the whole of football. Are we really supposed to believe that they're the most valuable team in the world to sponsors?Sorry if you have the money you should be able to spend as much as you want on infrastructure!
Also if FSG or the Glazers are good friends with a big American company it’s fine if they get sponsored above market value! Like the Liverpool’s first shirt sponsors there best offer at the time was 16m in the end they got one for 24m!
I’m sure that those marine engine manufacturers get fair value from sponsoring the rags!Sorry if you have the money you should be able to spend as much as you want on infrastructure!
Also if FSG or the Glazers are good friends with a big American company it’s fine if they get sponsored above market value! Like the Liverpool’s first shirt sponsors there best offer at the time was 16m in the end they got one for 24m!
The bottom tweet
Caught my eye.
I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.
To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?
So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…
The bottom tweet
Caught my eye.
I think it indicates that investing money in infrastructure isn’t ‘free’ anymore - ie it’s part of expenditure calculation for sustainability, rather than separate.
To me, that would seem to make infrastructure investment less attractive - ie if you haven’t got a decent academy, a state of the art stadium, training facilities and offices already… you are unlikely to be chucking wodges of cash at it?
So if you’ve got all those covered - which is almost all the top clubs, then it’s another drawbridge to any other club joining the ‘cartel’. A notable exception would seem to be United…
Our womens team is a separate company, I think. Will UEFA try and include that in? The PL certainly will under their “group” rules if CFG own that co.Haven't read it all yet but my initial thoughts are:
1 Far more subjective judgement comes into these rules. FFP was a cold calculation where as this requires some assessment of value of sponsorship and 'good financial health'. This makes it far more open to challenge and legal wrangle.
2 Taking out the infrastructure and other (youth, womens) football is a big deal. That really does put a block on investment. Building any big project like a stadium or training complex becomes a massive risk. Its also detremental to womens / youth football. I suspect a lot of it runs on a loss and therefore again why spend more money on it when it just going to limit what you can do with the men's team.
Indeed. You’d have thought Barcelona and United should be fearing that ‘good financial health’ statement, but I’m sure debt will be ‘good’ to whomever decides…Agree.
The bit that concerns me though is in the top tweet you posted. "if a club is deemed to be in good financial health... etc".
Who gets to decide that? Why do they get more allowance?
Rules with blurred lines can be used a multitude of ways.
Not really as it will be a capital cost which can be amortised over many many years like a contract.Wonder if this will hold up development of the North stand as its now accountable within FFP
Doesn’t work like that matey. The cost is still the cost on the books. The loan only affects cash flow to pay for the work.Because they’ll just get a massive loan and if it’s within what they can pay a month it’s fine!
Yep… get that drawbridge pulled up. Don’t want anyone else joining the cartel money machine.That’s Everton fucked
Again, it really doesn’t matter where the money comes from so long as the cost is under the turnover ratio (90% down to 70% over 3 years).Exactly! How can spending borrowed (interest-incurring) money be more 'sustainable' than using internal investment?
That’s why the related party element is no longer part of it.Never mind that. What about all of the German corporations that hold shares in clubs they sponsor? Bayern Munich have the highest commercial income in the whole of football. Are we really supposed to believe that they're the most valuable team in the world to sponsors?
‘Did you keep the receipt Moshiri?’Have Everton said owt yet?
It specifically states that the calculation is for [MENS] player salaries, transfer amortisation and the coaches salaries.Our womens team is a separate company, I think. Will UEFA try and include that in? The PL certainly will under their “group” rules if CFG own that co.
Doesn’t work like that matey. The cost is still the cost on the books. The loan only affects cash flow to pay for the work.
Again, it really doesn’t matter where the money comes from so long as the cost is under the turnover ratio (90% down to 70% over 3 years).