United Thread - 2022/23

[waspish]

There is some concern on a couple of those horrible rag fan channels that FFP will restrict their spending ! Can anyone with some financial brain shed some light on this
Please please let it be true !

No idea now what ffp rules are in premier! in Europe it has changed if I’m correct it’s 90% turnover on annual wages 1st year 2nd year 80% 3rd year 90%

 

[halfcenturyup]

No idea now what ffp rules are in premier! in Europe it has changed if I’m correct it’s 90% turnover on annual wages 1st year 2nd year 80% 3rd year 90%

Third year and following 70%.

Edit: They also have a break even requirement, but the tolerance has been increased up to quite a big number in certain circumstances.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

There is some concern on a couple of those horrible rag fan channels that FFP will restrict their spending ! Can anyone with some financial brain shed some light on this
Please please let it be true !

Well they’ve had to pay to get themselves out of their shirt sponsor deal and they won’t be receiving the money from Team viewer for the foreseeable. That will leave them with less incomings, any new sponsor won’t be paying what they got last time in the middle of a financial down turn for the country. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[BrianW]

They can get a new noodle sponsor in Thailand. All legit., of course. Audited in the Cayman Islands.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This Team Viewer sponsor sounds dodgy as fuck, when they signed this deal there were thoughts it was over inflated as the amount was a high ratio of what the company was actually worth. Where’s the investigations from the Premier League or Der Spiegal writing articles about what’s going on? Their last deal with Chevrolet ended up with someone being sacked for it, are their sponsorships at fair market value or vastly inflated to hide something? @Prestwich_Blue what's your thoughts?

I gave my thoughts at the time they announced it. It was way out of line for a company of Team Viewer's size and basically took all their net profit. Their (TV's) shareholders agree, which is why they're pulling out. I couldn't see how it would impact sales as I think it's free for personal use but not for commercial use. But no company buys software because the vendor advertises on football shirts. They should do a rigorous assessment and procurement process. I guess it helps with brand recognition though, so you might be one of the vendors shortlisted.

There is some concern on a couple of those horrible rag fan channels that FFP will restrict their spending ! Can anyone with some financial brain shed some light on this
Please please let it be true !

Unlikely in my view but possible. FFP moves to a new model from next season, whereby instead of looking at the bottom line net profits over 3 historic years (an appallingly poor system) they're using player cost as a percentage of revenue in future.

The core equation is (wages + amortisation + impairment) divided by (revenue + profit on transfers) eventually has to be 70% or less. However there's a 3-year introduction period whereby it's 90% next season, 80% in 2024/25 and finally 70% in 2025/26.

The problem with united is that their revenue could drop significantly if they don't make the CL next season, as various clauses kick in that reduce sponsorship revenue. They're also not very good at maximising player sale profits. They're probably fine while the level is no less 80% but if they spend a few seasons out of the CL then it's possible that they might be sweating to meet a 70% cut-off.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I gave my thoughts at the time they announced it. It was way out of line for a company of Team Viewer's size and basically took all their net profit. Their (TV's) shareholders agree, which is why they're pulling out. I couldn't see how it would impact sales as I think it's free for personal use but not for commercial use. But no company buys software because the vendor advertises on football shirts. They should do a rigorous assessment and procurement process. I guess it helps with brand recognition though, so you might be one of the vendors shortlisted.


Unlikely in my view but possible. FFP moves to a new model from next season, whereby instead of looking at the bottom line net profits over 3 historic years (an appallingly poor system) they're using player cost as a percentage of revenue in future.

The core equation is (wages + amortisation + impairment) divided by (revenue + profit on transfers) eventually has to be 70% or less. However there's a 3
-year introduction period whereby it's 90% next season, 80% in 2024/25 and finally 70% in 2025/26.

The problem with united is that their revenue could drop significantly if they don't make the CL next season, as various clauses kick in that reduce sponsorship revenue. They're also not very good at maximising player sale profits. They're probably fine while the level is no less 80% but if they spend a few seasons out of the CL then it's possible that they might be sweating to meet a 70% cut-off.

Hoisted with their own fucking petard.

 

[117 M34]

I gave my thoughts at the time they announced it. It was way out of line for a company of Team Viewer's size and basically took all their net profit. Their (TV's) shareholders agree, which is why they're pulling out. I couldn't see how it would impact sales as I think it's free for personal use but not for commercial use. But no company buys software because the vendor advertises on football shirts. They should do a rigorous assessment and procurement process. I guess it helps with brand recognition though, so you might be one of the vendors shortlisted.


Unlikely in my view but possible. FFP moves to a new model from next season, whereby instead of looking at the bottom line net profits over 3 historic years (an appallingly poor system) they're using player cost as a percentage of revenue in future.

The core equation is (wages + amortisation + impairment) divided by (revenue + profit on transfers) eventually has to be 70% or less. However there's a 3-year introduction period whereby it's 90% next season, 80% in 2024/25 and finally 70% in 2025/26.

The problem with united is that their revenue could drop significantly if they don't make the CL next season, as various clauses kick in that reduce sponsorship revenue. They're also not very good at maximising player sale profits. They're probably fine while the level is no less 80% but if they spend a few seasons out of the CL then it's possible that they might be sweating to meet a 70% cut-off.

With a greater focus on amortisation, do you think we will start seeing clubs buying players on longer contracts?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

With a greater focus on amortisation, do you think we will start seeing clubs buying players on longer contracts?

Doubtful except in very rare circumstances imo. They can (and usually do) extend after a couple of years which serves the same end, but reduces the risk.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

With a greater focus on amortisation, do you think we will start seeing clubs buying players on longer contracts?

I doubt it. I'm not sure but I think 6 years is the limit currently. What I have said is that I think clubs will be more aggressive in dealing with players who are three years into a contract. It'll be sign an extension or fuck off I reckon. I doubt many will be allowed to run contracts down, like Milner did, or even go into a penultimate year while there was an offer on the table, like Sterling.

 

[horlock_was_super]

Evening fellow Blues.
nytid are shite, scum and should be hated around the clock - even when you’re asleep.
SCUM.
As you were.
CTID.