PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Although I like Forest, perhaps they overspent in recent windows. Yet still...

So what? If the owner can afford these expenditures... so what?

FFP regulations currently in place in the P/L were voted upon by club ownership.

What FFP is actually for, is to prevent clubs with new wealthy ownership from spending enough to challenge club leadership.

Bullshit I say.

Let a club spend what they will so long as it doesn't put the club into irrecoverable debt.

Newcastle have unlimited funds due to their owners.

Perhaps some sort of investment cap needs to be placed on ownership - otherwise Newcastle will simply buy the league.

TL/DL - FFP needs to be abolished. Instead, an investment cap, very high, should be imposed, alongside a rule not to place a club in dire financial straights.

 

[abu13]

I should have proofread that. I’m not saying what my job is, those that know me, know who I work for, but I do work in south Manchester and yes, my work is full of scousers.

I guess you're a prison officer :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

IMO, Everton are being totally screwed by the current FFP regulations.

Yeah, it's their own fault, but still.. totally screwed.

I'm not an Everton fan and was routing for them to go down last season.

But this season, if they go down because of point deductions - especially more than the 10 they already have - is total bullshit IMO.

FFP as currently formulated is total nonsense and either needs to be scraped entirely or needs to be reconstituted to fit its original purpose, namely, to prevent clubs from ruinous overspending.

They are and they aren't. Everton knew what the rules were and carried on spending even when they knew they were going to be in trouble by doing so. As you say, entirely their own fault and no one should have any sympathy with them.

The problem is that applying a 10-point deduction mid-season is an issue, both in terms of the timing and severity. The commission made the rather ridiculous point that a financial penalty was inappropriate because they had a rich owner. That shouldn't count in applying an appropriate sanction.

They also said that a points deduction was appropriate because their excessive spending could have resulted in them accumulating extra points they might not otherwise have got if they'd restricted their spending within acceptable limits. You can see some logic behind that but then united have spent loads and under-performed whereas Brighton haven't spent loads and have over-performed. So spending more does not necessarily equate to accumulating more points.

The main problem with any system based on historical profit or loss is that it doesn't really give you a meaningful insight into a club's financial position. United needed investment because they were burning through cash. Without Ratcliffe's money, they might well have run out of cash by Easter. Hard questions should be asked about their liabilities, and how they're going to meet them. And the same applies to every other club.

The historic basis of PSR is also questionable. If club A reports a loss of £75m in year T-2, a £40m loss in year T-1, and a £20m profit in year T, while club B reported the other way round (£20m profit in year T-2, £40m loss in T-1 and a £75m loss in year T) they'll both pass PSR in theory. But which one would ring alarm bells?

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

The historic basis of PSR is also questionable. If club A reports a loss of £75m in year T-2, a £40m loss in year T-1, and a £20m profit in year T, while club B reported the other way round (£20m profit in year T-2, £40m loss in T-1 and a £75m loss in year T) they'll both pass PSR in theory. But which one would ring alarm bells?

What colour shirt is club B wearing?

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

They are and they aren't. Everton knew what the rules were and carried on spending even when they knew they were going to be in trouble by doing so. As you say, entirely their own fault and no one should have any sympathy with them.

The problem is that applying a 10-point deduction mid-season is an issue, both in terms of the timing and severity. The commission made the rather ridiculous point that a financial penalty was inappropriate because they had a rich owner. That shouldn't count in applying an appropriate sanction.

They also said that a points deduction was appropriate because their excessive spending could have resulted in them accumulating extra points they might not otherwise have got if they'd restricted their spending within acceptable limits. You can see some logic behind that but then united have spent loads and under-performed whereas Brighton haven't spent loads and have over-performed. So spending more does not necessarily equate to accumulating more points.

The main problem with any system based on historical profit or loss is that it doesn't really give you a meaningful insight into a club's financial position. United needed investment because they were burning through cash. Without Ratcliffe's money, they might well have run out of cash by Easter. Hard questions should be asked about their liabilities, and how they're going to meet them. And the same applies to every other club.

The historic basis of PSR is also questionable. If club A reports a loss of £75m in year T-2, a £40m loss in year T-1, and a £20m profit in year T, while club B reported the other way round (£20m profit in year T-2, £40m loss in T-1 and a £75m loss in year T) they'll both pass PSR in theory. But which one would ring alarm bells?

Not so simple... it's a fucking mess.

Everton screwed up in their stadium financing... a financial deal they counted on fell apart.

Everton benefited from sort of delayed punishment. Points deduction that might have applied last year was deferred.

And suddenly, this year, the deferred points deduction penalty is applied, alongside another points deduction penalty for this year's non-compliance. 20 points deduction in total.

And for what?...

Everton haven't spent much in xfers at all and have been very conservative. They blew a bunch of money on their new stadium and because their owners were financial inept, they incurred the stadium expenditures at a time when they were unable to mitigate them.

Financial screwup... yes.

Putting the club into irrecoverable hardship - I don't think so.

Penalty - 10 points deduction followed by another 10 in the same season.

Bullshit.

 

[Dribble]

Spurs rise above rivals​

The brand of football that is being delivered under Ange Postecoglou this season has undoubtedly quelled some of the anger that had been sent the way of Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy in recent years. The fact that Spurs are one of the few clubs to be engaging in the market this month, with £26m spent on Genoa’s Radu Dragusin and a loan deal for RB Leipzig striker Timo Werner, which could turn into a £15m permanent deal if all works out as hoped, has hinted that the tide may be turning in Spurs’ favour.

Figures presented by football finance expert Swiss Ramble last year looked at the potential PSR position of each Premier League club, and just how much they could lose before being in breach of the regulations.

For some the margins were fine, but for Spurs, through a considered transfer strategy and the fact that much of the losses that the club has incurred can be attributed to the building of the £1bn new stadium, with such costs an allowable deduction when it comes to PSR, the picture was rather serene when compared to the rest of the League. Liverpool, a club that has a similarly cautious approach to spending and a strong balance sheet, also fared well.

Spurs emerged as the club with the best PSR position in the Premier League, with allowable losses of £276m, a figure aided by the fact that much of the losses attributed to the club can be linked to the building of the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (THS), with stadium and infrastructure costs not factored in when it comes to PSR calculations. Liverpool were the next best with an allowable loss of £156m, with Manchester City next on the list at £139m.

Speaking to University of Cambridge students at the Cambridge Union in March last year, Levy said: “Debt isn’t really a problem for anyone that understands finance, providing you can match long-term income streams with long-term debt. As long as it is financed properly it isn't a problem.

“It is effectively a 30-year mortgage at a very low interest rate. It’s not a problem at all. When you are building a club and building long-term value there are a number of ingredients. One is profitability; some clubs are valued at a lot of money that aren’t profitable, therefore revenue becomes important. Physical assets, success on the pitch; there is no one asset, you need them all to come together.”

The lack of on-pitch success and perceived lack of investment in the playing squad has been a major bone of contention of Spurs fans when it comes to assessing Levy’s time as chairman. Of the ‘Big Six’, Spurs have operated on the fringes, flirting with the odd spot of glory before being hamstrung by a lack of consistency on the playing side. The tide may be about to turn, though, and there is little that some of their rivals can do about it.

Spurs have been getting their ducks in a row for quite some time. The new stadium, the extra revenue deals with the likes of the NFL and the Formula One Experience, as well as a rigid pay structure and lack of willingness to engage in paying inflated prices in the transfer market, all form part of a plan that is likely to see the club head into the next 10 years with one of the healthiest outlooks in the Premier League.

It looks like Spuds are leading the race to the bottom for the PL, where they spend relatively little on players so are unable to sustain title challenges, but are now happy to drag the rest of the League down with them for the "Net spend on the cheap" trophy aka PSR.

Not being willing to spend, Spuds are happy for the chasing pack in the Premier League being unable to spend to level up the playing field & challenge them for the coveted fifth Champions League spot.

It used to be the Italian League, then the Spanish League, now it's the Premier League which dominates European football. Which league stands to gain because the PL are prepared to slay the goose that laid their golden egg, as long as it hammers Manchester City, & stops the likes of Newcastle, Villa & Everton from joining the top five CL qualification challenge?

News is breaking that Newcastle maybe forced to sell Almiron, Wilson & Trippier by the end of the season, & are facing an austere summer transfer window, so as to avoid PSR sanctions like Everton.

Other reports are saying even this may not be enough, which is casting doubts on Newcastle's most saleable assets in Botman, Guimarães & Isak.

Newcastle could be pecked to the bone by their rivals as they try to avoid Everton's fate, & with PSR in play, not even being the richest club in the world can help them.

The Red Top Mafia & Spuds have finally done it. They're killing the dreams of other football fans, that they could win the lottery & become the next Manchester City or Newcastle.

It's now evident that you can have the richest owner in the world, but you can barely spend a penny of those riches to compete, just because the Red Top Mafia & Spuds don't think it's fair on them to be challenged.

Unless something is done to end this madness, the PL will be fucked. How long will the other 16 PL teams stand by & watch the destruction of the most competitive & richest league in the world, just because it suits the four founding members? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

https://www.football.london/tottenh...iel-levy-masterplan-leaves-tottenham-28479054

 

[bitterfuse]

His wank stains on other kids trousers more like …! Detestable **** he is..!

Jordan's bitterness towards City goes back to 2009 when he was still in charge of Palace. He was hoping City would buy Victor Moses for an inflated fee in order to temporarily prop up his already ailing ownership of the club. We didn't and the rest as they say is history. That is why he stil has it in for us - pathetic.

 

[Dribble]

They are and they aren't. Everton knew what the rules were and carried on spending even when they knew they were going to be in trouble by doing so. As you say, entirely their own fault and no one should have any sympathy with them.

The problem is that applying a 10-point deduction mid-season is an issue, both in terms of the timing and severity. The commission made the rather ridiculous point that a financial penalty was inappropriate because they had a rich owner. That shouldn't count in applying an appropriate sanction.

They also said that a points deduction was appropriate because their excessive spending could have resulted in them accumulating extra points they might not otherwise have got if they'd restricted their spending within acceptable limits. You can see some logic behind that but then united have spent loads and under-performed whereas Brighton haven't spent loads and have over-performed. So spending more does not necessarily equate to accumulating more points.

The main problem with any system based on historical profit or loss is that it doesn't really give you a meaningful insight into a club's financial position. United needed investment because they were burning through cash. Without Ratcliffe's money, they might well have run out of cash by Easter. Hard questions should be asked about their liabilities, and how they're going to meet them. And the same applies to every other club.

The historic basis of PSR is also questionable. If club A reports a loss of £75m in year T-2, a £40m loss in year T-1, and a £20m profit in year T, while club B reported the other way round (£20m profit in year T-2, £40m loss in T-1 and a £75m loss in year T) they'll both pass PSR in theory. But which one would ring alarm bells?

Didn't Everton cite the loss of £200m stadium naming rights because of the Ukraine war?

If the PL were seriously trying to look after their 20 stakeholders, they'd be working with teams to keep the PL as the best, most sustainable league in the world, & not trying to hammer their members just to appease the Red Top Mafia & Spuds.

Who in their right mind would decimate their business in this way? No sane person or organisation would do this.

 

[i kne albert davy]

So you work in the job centre? -:)

Last place you're likely to find Scousers.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

View attachment 104844View attachment 104845

Spurs rise above rivals​

The brand of football that is being delivered under Ange Postecoglou this season has undoubtedly quelled some of the anger that had been sent the way of Tottenham Hotspur chairman Daniel Levy in recent years. The fact that Spurs are one of the few clubs to be engaging in the market this month, with £26m spent on Genoa’s Radu Dragusin and a loan deal for RB Leipzig striker Timo Werner, which could turn into a £15m permanent deal if all works out as hoped, has hinted that the tide may be turning in Spurs’ favour.

Figures presented by football finance expert Swiss Ramble last year looked at the potential PSR position of each Premier League club, and just how much they could lose before being in breach of the regulations.

For some the margins were fine, but for Spurs, through a considered transfer strategy and the fact that much of the losses that the club has incurred can be attributed to the building of the £1bn new stadium, with such costs an allowable deduction when it comes to PSR, the picture was rather serene when compared to the rest of the League. Liverpool, a club that has a similarly cautious approach to spending and a strong balance sheet, also fared well.

Spurs emerged as the club with the best PSR position in the Premier League, with allowable losses of £276m, a figure aided by the fact that much of the losses attributed to the club can be linked to the building of the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (THS), with stadium and infrastructure costs not factored in when it comes to PSR calculations. Liverpool were the next best with an allowable loss of £156m, with Manchester City next on the list at £139m.

Speaking to University of Cambridge students at the Cambridge Union in March last year, Levy said: “Debt isn’t really a problem for anyone that understands finance, providing you can match long-term income streams with long-term debt. As long as it is financed properly it isn't a problem.

“It is effectively a 30-year mortgage at a very low interest rate. It’s not a problem at all. When you are building a club and building long-term value there are a number of ingredients. One is profitability; some clubs are valued at a lot of money that aren’t profitable, therefore revenue becomes important. Physical assets, success on the pitch; there is no one asset, you need them all to come together.”

The lack of on-pitch success and perceived lack of investment in the playing squad has been a major bone of contention of Spurs fans when it comes to assessing Levy’s time as chairman. Of the ‘Big Six’, Spurs have operated on the fringes, flirting with the odd spot of glory before being hamstrung by a lack of consistency on the playing side. The tide may be about to turn, though, and there is little that some of their rivals can do about it.

Spurs have been getting their ducks in a row for quite some time. The new stadium, the extra revenue deals with the likes of the NFL and the Formula One Experience, as well as a rigid pay structure and lack of willingness to engage in paying inflated prices in the transfer market, all form part of a plan that is likely to see the club head into the next 10 years with one of the healthiest outlooks in the Premier League.

It looks like Spuds are leading the race to the bottom for the PL, where they spend relatively little on players so are unable to sustain title challenges, but are now happy to drag the rest of the League down with them for the "Net spend on the cheap" trophy aka PSR.

Not being willing to spend, Spuds are happy for the rest of the League being unable to spend to level up the playing field for them.

It used to be the Italian League, then the Spanish League, now it's the Premier League which dominates European football. Which league stands to gain because the PL are prepared to slay the goose that laid their golden egg, as long as it hammers Manchester City, & stops the likes of Newcastle, Villa & Everton from joining the top five CL qualification challenge?

News is breaking that Newcastle maybe forced to sell Almiron, Wilson & Trippier by the end of the season, & are facing an austere summer transfer window, so as to avoid PSR sanctions like Everton.

Other reports are saying even this may not be enough, which is casting doubts on Newcastle's most saleable assets in Botman, Guimarães & Isak.

Newcastle could be pecked to the bone by their rivals as they try to avoid Everton's fate, & with PSR in play, not even being the richest club in the world can help them.

The Red Top Mafia & Spuds have finally done it. They're killing the dreams of other football fans, that they could win the lottery & become the next Manchester City or Newcastle.

It's now evident that you can have the richest owner in the world, but you can barely spend a penny of those riches to compete, just because the Red Top Mafia & Spuds don't think it's fair on them to be challenged.

Unless something is done to end this madness, the PL will be fucked. How long will the other 16 PL teams stand by & watch the destruction of the most competitive & richest league in the world, just because it suits the founding four members? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

https://www.football.london/tottenh...iel-levy-masterplan-leaves-tottenham-28479054

Levy and that bloke who’s facing porridge in the states are spivs. Nothing more, nothing less. Spuds are portrayed as holier than thou in the media but those a bit longer in the tooth or with a bit of knowledge know all about the bungs scandal, all about them getting a £100m loan with the UK tax payer during covid etc etc.

fuck em.