Currently, Team Viewer brings in no money, I believe. They cancelled their sponsorship but the rags were unable to find an alternative so just kept Team V on the shirt.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Stadia costs are not included in ffp.I was thinking earlier about this "fair and market value" comment, as i understand it lets assume we sign a deal for £50 million but the PL say it should only be £25 million then we dont lose the money coming in, it just means there will be an adjustment to reduce the difference.
So how does it work if the Rags get government funding towards a new stadium? Surely and club who has developed their own stadium at their own cost would have a valid claim against the "fair and market value".
Slight amendment based on redshirt lies.Your entire point is predicated on your belief that our hierarchy want and alternative to FFP/PSR. I don't think they care what rules are in place - they will cheat and win
Dribble
Well-Known Member
City already made alternative suggestions as far back as 2012 & the G14 Cartel Clubs fucked us off.Your entire point is predicated on your belief that our hierarchy want and alternative to FFP/PSR. I don't think they care what rules are in place - they will comply and win
There's now a growing realisation that these rules are fucked & will only work for those at the top.
What's lacking, & would put the cat amongst the FFP/PSR pigeons is a fully thought-through football finance alternative. Surely this has got to be better than us being like sitting ducks waiting for our enemies to conjure up more ways to crush us?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Here's one for starters.You may be right.
It needs a mixed speciality action group, NOT a COMMITTEE
'One volunteer is better than nine pressed men'.
I'll help if I can.
New owners can attain loans, but only as a percentage of their turnover. If they want to borrow more they can, but it can't be levied as debt against the club.
If they want to invest their own wealth, they can but it has to be converted into equity.
This will stop reckless owners gambling their club's futures away, & wouldn't limit ambitious but sensible owners from investing their personal wealth into their clubs.
The nonsense UEFA told us in 2012 has proved unworkable bollocks. They suggested that we invest in youth & grow our playing squad organically over a number of seasons until we could challenge.
Absolute bollocks! Look at Leicester. Within 2 seasons of winning the PL, they were asset stripped. Kanté & Drinkwater went the Chelsea, Maguire to ManUre, Mahrez to City, with only Vardy resisting Arsenal's advances to remain & Chilwell also moving to Chelsea but a bit later.
Seven years after their unlikely PL win, Leicester were relegated to the Championship. That says all we need to know about building a squad organically.
You either become a nursery, or a feeder club for the CL chasing clubs as Leicester found out, & similar to what's happening to Brighton now.
It only takes a couple of bad seasons & a weakened, underdeveloped squad until those clubs could be scrapping against relegation rivals for PL survival.
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,249
Do you think they'll leave us alone if we come up with an alternative? You've already said we did and they fucked us off. City is the issue for the others, not FFPCity already made alternative suggestions as far back as 2012 & the G14 Cartel Clubs fucked us off.
There's now a growing realisation that these rules are fucked & will only work for those at the top.
What's lacking, & would put the cat amongst the FFP/PSR pigeons is a fully thought-through football finance alternative. Surely this has got to be better than us being like sitting ducks waiting for our enemies to conjure up more ways to crush us?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Perceptions are changing. We've spent the last 12 years bellyaching about how unfair & unworkable FFP/PSR is. It's time we went on the front foot & started offering up viable, workable solutions which are fair for all, protect clubs from reckless owners, but doesn't stop responsible owner investment.Do you think they'll leave us alone if we come up with an alternative? You've already said we did and they fucked us off. City is the issue for the others, not FFP
Do you have any suggestions to put forward which others can add to as an alternative to the current shitshow that is FFP/PSR? I've offered up a couple above in the hope of kick-starting a solutions based conversation.
We've already discussed the negatives of FFP/PSR to death, yet here we are facing another 115 breaches of the PL's/UEFA's bullshit rules.
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
But that means that being bailed out by the UK government allows them to finance player expenditure with money that should have been used by themselves on stadium developmentStadia costs are not included in ffp.
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,249
Get rid of it from the PL.Perceptions are changing. We've spent the last 12 years bellyaching about how unfair & unworkable FFP/PSR is. It's time we went on the front foot & started offering up viable, workable solutions which are fair for all, protect clubs from reckless owners, but doesn't stop responsible owner investment.
Do you have any suggestions to put forward which others can add to as an alternative to the current shitshow that is FFP/PSR? I've offered up a couple above in the hope of kick-starting a solutions based conversation.
We've already discussed the negatives of FFP/PSR to death, yet here we are facing another 115 breaches of the PL's/UEFA's bullshit rules.
The clubs qualifying for UEFA competition are restricted from spending to comply with their FFP, and the lower half clubs can spend as much as their owners want.
...but that's not what the cartel want, which is why we have this shit show in the first place, and why it's ultimately pointless discussing alternatives
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,128
I was thinking earlier about this "fair and market value" comment, as i understand it lets assume we sign a deal for £50 million but the PL say it should only be £25 million then we dont lose the money coming in, it just means there will be an adjustment to reduce the difference.
So how does it work if the Rags get government funding towards a new stadium? Surely and club who has developed their own stadium at their own cost would have a valid claim against the "fair and market value".
Iirc, the PL wants to approve sponsorships before they are signed, so they can be concluded at the PL's fair value. If a club wants to take the risk of signing a contract before approval, then there must be clause that it can be amended post-signature to the PL's fair value. And if monies have been received before approval over the PL's fair value, then that excess should be repaid to the sponsor. They don't want to amend the FFP accounts for their fair values, the PL want the actual signed, audited accounts to reflect their fair values, and this is where they will have problems legally, I think.
As already mentioned, stadium infrastructure costs are not deducted from revenues for FFP purposes, so it doesn't matter how they are funded.