In what other universe is this behaviour rewarded and net contributors penalised?I think most clubs prioritises protecting the business case of their (US) owners. For them it is perfectly fine being a mid table team as long as they make good money every year. The cartel system virtually guarantees that this can go on forever. City is a threat to this system and those who profits just want to continue to extract money out of football.
That is indeed a whole new area, but I've asked the question before about the nature of financial regulation in football. What is it for? What's the objective?
Is it to ensure a genuinely level financial playing field? No one really wants a scenario like Germany or France, where the wealthiest club by far generally dominates the league. Obviously that probably applies to us at the moment but there are a number of clubs who stand apart from the rest financially, with united & Chelsea showing that spending does not necessarily equate to success.
If that's the objective then you have to look at revenue sharing and spending caps. The notion of 'anchoring' is not one that I'm comfortable with. Why allow the lowest earning clubs to restrict the spending of the successful ones? You're handicapping clubs like us and Liverpool by doing that.
Is it to ensure genuine financial sustainability? I've said many times that the current PSR/FFP regimes, with the focus on historic profits and losses, aren't fit for that purpose. The squad cost rules are better, but still don't answer the fundamental questions around debt, which has generally been the main factor in club failure. We could have easily gone into administration in summer 2008, not because of historic losses, but because of cashflow issues and our inability to meet the £15m liability for the previous summer's transfers. FFP/PSR, even with squad cost limits, still won't prevent that liability-based scenario.
To use your example, if Musk took over Ipswich, and proposed a £1bn sponsorship over 5 years, it should fail the PL's FMV test. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with that. If he lent them a billion, there would be no regulatory scrutiny though, although they could still only spend so much, based on their revenue, expenses and squad cost. You could argue there should be some leeway though. But if he did lend them a substantial sum, regardless of whether they could spend it, then changed his mind a couple of years later and demanded it back, they'd be screwed, possibly terminally. It happened with Brooks Mileson at Gretna (although he fell seriously ill). Why are there no rules to mitigate impacts like this?
I'll finish with the question I started with, which is what is financial regulation trying to achieve? We've never had a satisfactory answer to this question.
Sounds like a fkn monopoly card.How long has Ingo Bank been CFO - anybody know anything about him
Ingo bank, go directly to bank, do not pass go...Sounds like a fkn monopoly card.
I was saying the exact same to my mate,I think that something more is brewing behind the scenes and next two weeks it could all go tit's up.....As if this is the week that has blown up the PL. Absolute hyperbole.
To be clear, the next two weeks will be the weeks that blow up the PL unless the PL start playing ball.
:)
I am with you on this......The cynic in me agrees that Newcastle fans have only had their eyes opened to what's been going on because it now directly affects their club, but on the other hand, I don't really care why other fans are starting to see it, as long as they are
Yes now we know there was loads of blowing blowing job going on behind the sceneAs if this is the week that has blown up the PL. Absolute hyperbole.
To be clear, the next two weeks will be the weeks that blow up the PL unless the PL start playing ball.
:)
That is indeed a whole new area, but I've asked the question before about the nature of financial regulation in football. What is it for? What's the objective?
Is it to ensure a genuinely level financial playing field? No one really wants a scenario like Germany or France, where the wealthiest club by far generally dominates the league. Obviously that probably applies to us at the moment but there are a number of clubs who stand apart from the rest financially, with united & Chelsea showing that spending does not necessarily equate to success.
If that's the objective then you have to look at revenue sharing and spending caps. The notion of 'anchoring' is not one that I'm comfortable with. Why allow the lowest earning clubs to restrict the spending of the successful ones? You're handicapping clubs like us and Liverpool by doing that.
Is it to ensure genuine financial sustainability? I've said many times that the current PSR/FFP regimes, with the focus on historic profits and losses, aren't fit for that purpose. The squad cost rules are better, but still don't answer the fundamental questions around debt, which has generally been the main factor in club failure. We could have easily gone into administration in summer 2008, not because of historic losses, but because of cashflow issues and our inability to meet the £15m liability for the previous summer's transfers. FFP/PSR, even with squad cost limits, still won't prevent that liability-based scenario.
To use your example, if Musk took over Ipswich, and proposed a £1bn sponsorship over 5 years, it should fail the PL's FMV test. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with that. If he lent them a billion, there would be no regulatory scrutiny though, although they could still only spend so much, based on their revenue, expenses and squad cost. You could argue there should be some leeway though. But if he did lend them a substantial sum, regardless of whether they could spend it, then changed his mind a couple of years later and demanded it back, they'd be screwed, possibly terminally. It happened with Brooks Mileson at Gretna (although he fell seriously ill). Why are there no rules to mitigate impacts like this?
I'll finish with the question I started with, which is what is financial regulation trying to achieve? We've never had a satisfactory answer to this question.
The end goal of ffp was to turn Epl into E MLS so that they can fuck city from different positions. On surface the rule book looks neat and tidy but inside it’s still the reds ccunts and dildo levy running the show. They have managed to get this far and it’s only a matter of time , the day they bring in salary cap , it’s done .That is indeed a whole new area, but I've asked the question before about the nature of financial regulation in football. What is it for? What's the objective?
Is it to ensure a genuinely level financial playing field? No one really wants a scenario like Germany or France, where the wealthiest club by far generally dominates the league. Obviously that probably applies to us at the moment but there are a number of clubs who stand apart from the rest financially, with united & Chelsea showing that spending does not necessarily equate to success.
If that's the objective then you have to look at revenue sharing and spending caps. The notion of 'anchoring' is not one that I'm comfortable with. Why allow the lowest earning clubs to restrict the spending of the successful ones? You're handicapping clubs like us and Liverpool by doing that.
Is it to ensure genuine financial sustainability? I've said many times that the current PSR/FFP regimes, with the focus on historic profits and losses, aren't fit for that purpose. The squad cost rules are better, but still don't answer the fundamental questions around debt, which has generally been the main factor in club failure. We could have easily gone into administration in summer 2008, not because of historic losses, but because of cashflow issues and our inability to meet the £15m liability for the previous summer's transfers. FFP/PSR, even with squad cost limits, still won't prevent that liability-based scenario.
To use your example, if Musk took over Ipswich, and proposed a £1bn sponsorship over 5 years, it should fail the PL's FMV test. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with that. If he lent them a billion, there would be no regulatory scrutiny though, although they could still only spend so much, based on their revenue, expenses and squad cost. You could argue there should be some leeway though. But if he did lend them a substantial sum, regardless of whether they could spend it, then changed his mind a couple of years later and demanded it back, they'd be screwed, possibly terminally. It happened with Brooks Mileson at Gretna (although he fell seriously ill). Why are there no rules to mitigate impacts like this?
I'll finish with the question I started with, which is what is financial regulation trying to achieve? We've never had a satisfactory answer to this question.