The General Football thread

[Gary Onedaysoon]

The way I see it is that UEFA should have minimal money to provide recommendations on these areas but no UK money should ever leave these shores to support a governance activity, especially investigations. It should be down to the country then to accept and implement the recommendations and run with the regulatory models themselves.

After the recent ruling against FIFA and UEFA (super-league related), I think bodies like UEFA need to tone down the dictatorship mode and be made to start selling their concepts to their customers.

At country level this should be nothing to do with FAPL Ltd (the PL) either. It should be run by the FA. FSR should be the set of recommendations. FFP should be the actual regulations.

Fair argument. How you get to that destination is very difficult from where we are now though. In the meantime English clubs are having to comply with two different sets financial regulations neither of which has been implemented efficiently or fairly to date.

 

[Spursex]

Fair argument. How you get to that destination is very difficult from where we are now though. In the meantime English clubs are having to comply with two different sets financial regulations neither of which has been implemented efficiently or fairly to date.

In amongst all the whining from clubs like Newcastle, it's being glossed over that if the Premier league adopted UEFA's allowable losses, they'd be in an even worse state in regard to sustainability rules. In the PL you can lose £105 mill over 3 years, with UEFA it's closer to 75 mill.

Where the PL has now aligned is the amortisation period; Chelsea 8/9 year contracts was a piss take and the PL has now adopted the 5-year rule, the same as UEFA's.

The PL do not want to close the loss gap at all, if anything the pressure is to allow greater losses over a three-year period, one suggestion last year in their annual meeting it was to double it (guess who was pushing that idea?).

The whining and whining from Newcastle is understandable, their owner have potentially limitless funds; but the over-riding counter argument which I wholeheartedly subscribe to is if you allowed new owners to spend vast sums in short periods and it didn't work and they lost interest e.g. Wolves, Notts forest - you can see these clubs being left high and dry and on a one way path to obscurity - or years in the lower divisions. The PL allowable losses are entirely right in my view, it helps maintain reasonable competitiveness in the PL and maintain it's status as one of if not the most exciting league in Europe.

Complying with UEFA's regs is harder than it is ours
.

My answer is build your base, build your foundations, run your business wisely, don't take mad risks, the rules are evening out what can be achieved.

No doubt there is an element of the huge historical spenders pulling up the ladder behind them, but even they are now getting caught out for mad-cap spending i.e. Manure spending is now marginal, as will be the chav's and even to a lessor extent ManC who are now under such scrutiny that finally, they're being realistic about their wage roll.

 

[Gary Onedaysoon]

In amongst all the whining from clubs like Newcastle, it's being glossed over that if the Premier league adopted UEFA's allowable losses, they'd be in an even worse state in regard to sustainability rules. In the PL you can lose £105 mill over 3 years, with UEFA it's closer to 75 mill.

Where the PL has now aligned is the amortisation period; Chelsea 8/9 year contracts was a piss take and the PL has now adopted the 5-year rule, the same as UEFA's.

The PL do not want to close the loss gap at all, if anything the pressure is to allow greater losses over a three-year period, one suggestion last year in their annual meeting it was to double it (guess who was pushing that idea?).

The whining and whining from Newcastle is understandable, their owner have potentially limitless funds; but the over-riding counter argument which I wholeheartedly subscribe to is if you allowed new owners to spend vast sums in short periods and it didn't work and they lost interest e.g. Wolves, Notts forest - you can see these clubs being left high and dry and on a one way path to obscurity - or years in the lower divisions. The PL allowable losses are entirely right in my view, it helps maintain reasonable competitiveness in the PL and maintain it's status as one of if not the most exciting league in Europe.

Complying with UEFA's regs is harder than it is ours
.

My answer is build your base, build your foundations, run your business wisely, don't take mad risks, the rules are evening out what can be achieved.

No doubt there is an element of the huge historical spenders pulling up the ladder behind them, but even they are now getting caught out for mad-cap spending i.e. Manure spending is now marginal, as will be the chav's and even to a lessor extent ManC who are now under such scrutiny that finally, they're being realistic about their wage roll.

Thanks for the explanation.

Just one question in return. You say "The PL do not want to close the loss gap at all, if anything the pressure is to allow greater losses over a three-year period..." Are you saying that the PL are unwilling implementing FFP/PSR? Threat of the football regulator etc.

 

[muttley]

Fair argument. How you get to that destination is very difficult from where we are now though. In the meantime English clubs are having to comply with two different sets financial regulations neither of which has been implemented efficiently or fairly to date.

You are of course right.

I genuinely believe that the first step towards that destination is making sure the broadcasting companies know they are currently engaging with the tail, not the dog.

 

[Gary Onedaysoon]

In amongst all the whining from clubs like Newcastle, it's being glossed over that if the Premier league adopted UEFA's allowable losses, they'd be in an even worse state in regard to sustainability rules. In the PL you can lose £105 mill over 3 years, with UEFA it's closer to 75 mill.

Where the PL has now aligned is the amortisation period; Chelsea 8/9 year contracts was a piss take and the PL has now adopted the 5-year rule, the same as UEFA's.

The PL do not want to close the loss gap at all, if anything the pressure is to allow greater losses over a three-year period, one suggestion last year in their annual meeting it was to double it (guess who was pushing that idea?).

The whining and whining from Newcastle is understandable, their owner have potentially limitless funds; but the over-riding counter argument which I wholeheartedly subscribe to is if you allowed new owners to spend vast sums in short periods and it didn't work and they lost interest e.g. Wolves, Notts forest - you can see these clubs being left high and dry and on a one way path to obscurity - or years in the lower divisions. The PL allowable losses are entirely right in my view, it helps maintain reasonable competitiveness in the PL and maintain it's status as one of if not the most exciting league in Europe.

Complying with UEFA's regs is harder than it is ours
.

My answer is build your base, build your foundations, run your business wisely, don't take mad risks, the rules are evening out what can be achieved.

No doubt there is an element of the huge historical spenders pulling up the ladder behind them, but even they are now getting caught out for mad-cap spending i.e. Manure spending is now marginal, as will be the chav's and even to a lessor extent ManC who are now under such scrutiny that finally, they're being realistic about their wage roll.

This is interesting. Martin Samuel has written an article in The Times this morning saying that the PL is abandoning its PSR model to be more closely aligned with Uefa's model.

"This is how convinced the Premier League is of the worth of its profit and sustainability rules. From August 2024, they change. Quite how isn’t yet in the public domain, but the expectation is for a system more aligned with the Uefa model, focusing on wages to turnover...

Changing profit and sustainability rules (PSR) is a tacit admission that, in the present state, they are no longer fit for purpose. This would figure as the system hasn’t really evolved since 2014 and does not take into account changes in the football landscape."

 

[muttley]

This is interesting. Martin Samuel has written an article in The Times this morning saying that the PL is abandoning its PSR model to be more closely aligned with Uefa's model.

"This is how convinced the Premier League is of the worth of its profit and sustainability rules. From August 2024, they change. Quite how isn’t yet in the public domain, but the expectation is for a system more aligned with the Uefa model, focusing on wages to turnover...

Changing profit and sustainability rules (PSR) is a tacit admission that, in the present state, they are no longer fit for purpose. This would figure as the system hasn’t really evolved since 2014 and does not take into account changes in the football landscape."

Being a big club ourselves, I guess we relate to FFP/PSR through our lens. What it really needs to be about is how a Wigan, Bolton or Derby can avoid going through the journeys they went through in the last decade. I live near to Reading FC and their current journey is horrible to watch. They are now 21st in League 1.

I've always wondered whether punishing these smaller clubs with fines and relegation through points deduction surely just makes the financial problems worse. The points deductions also come mid-season.

Whether we can get to a one size fits all model that covers both a Man City and a Wigan in the same proactive process is the interesting one. The wages to turnover model does seem sensible though.

 

[Pompey Yid]

Hey Muttley a bit of shenanigans took place at Reading FC yesterday eh!

Looked to me, the Fans really voiced their vitriol towards the owners.

 

[muttley]

Hey Muttley a bit of shenanigans took place at Reading FC yesterday eh!

Looked to me, the Fans really voiced their vitriol towards the owners.

Yeah, it's never been the same since John Madejski relinquished control. I think 2012 was their peak year and it's been downhill for a decade. Such a shame as there is such a catchment area for football around these parts. They do find the players through that academy, but always lose them for a song to the London clubs. The stadium is very good as well and used to be packed. I think the record gate was 33k.

The club just bounces from owner to owner and none of them seem to have a clue how to run the club well. Some very ugly scenes yesterday, but I believe it wasn't violent.

 

[Pompey Yid]

Yeah, it's never been the same since John Madejski relinquished control. I think 2012 was their peak year and it's been downhill for a decade. Such a shame as there is such a catchment area for football around these parts. They do find the players through that academy, but always lose them for a song to the London clubs. The stadium is very good as well and used to be packed. I think the record gate was 33k.

The club just bounces from owner to owner and none of them seem to have a clue how to run the club well. Some very ugly scenes yesterday, but I believe it wasn't violent.

Yeah there, 100% agreement.

In the old days I went to Reading a few times wiv my Pompey fan oppo's it was always a great day out, had some excellent cracks there, win or lose!

It is such a shame for the downfall.

 

[Spursex]

Thanks for the explanation.

Just one question in return. You say "The PL do not want to close the loss gap at all, if anything the pressure is to allow greater losses over a three-year period..." Are you saying that the PL are unwilling implementing FFP/PSR? Threat of the football regulator etc.

As always, the PL is divided on the issue of allowed losses. Some clubs want the allowable losses increased every year, (but on a 3 year rolling basis); the PL is now almost American owned/controlled, except of course the obvious exceptions. They come from a background where big losses to fulfil their ambitions is very much a part of franchise ownership in the early years.

The issue of course with any owner with that POV is when they lose interest or personally go stumps up as they can't keep chucking money at the club, Reading is just one in a long line of implosions - I know they're obviously no long in the Prem, but for years they kept spending like they were. Now their fans are crying about it, like all fans, as long as these 'business' people lose all sense of good business practice and keep chucking money at it, they're happy, until the sugar daddy approach drys up..

Personally, I'd change the approach slightly, i.e. not try and squeeze losses/calculations into the UEFA envelope for sustainability, but demand that all clubs took out an insurable bond, and that the licence to operate demands annual funding plans with proof of capital support and if it fails or the business is failing, for the PL/The FA/the league to withdraw their operators licence and take over the club and put it into remedial measures, or in the worst case scenario let it go bust.

It's being argued that the new football regulator should have just such powers, but whether that's just pie in the sky talk, who knows; the Regulator role was knee-jerk reaction to the proposed SL anyway, and fundamentally, getting government involved feels wrong to me.

The PL are trying to fix a problem of iffy owners and dubious practices - but that horse has long ago bolted.

 

[muttley]

As always, the PL is divided on the issue of allowed losses. Some clubs want the allowable losses increased every year, (but on a 3 year rolling basis); the PL is now almost American owned/controlled, except of course the obvious exceptions. They come from a background where big losses to fulfil their ambitions is very much a part of franchise ownership in the early years.

The issue of course with any owner with that POV is when they lose interest or personally go stumps up as they can't keep chucking money at the club, Reading is just one in a long line of implosions - I know they're obviously no long in the Prem, but for years they kept spending like they were. Now their fans are crying about it, like all fans, as long as these 'business' people lose all sense of good business practice and keep chucking money at it, they're happy, until the sugar daddy approach drys up..

Personally, I'd change the approach slightly, i.e. not try and squeeze losses/calculations into the UEFA envelope for sustainability, but demand that all clubs took out an insurable bond, and that the licence to operate demands annual funding plans with proof of capital support and if it fails or the business is failing, for the PL/The FA/the league to withdraw their operators licence and take over the club and put it into remedial measures, or in the worst case scenario let it go bust.

It's being argued that the new football regulator should have just such powers, but whether that's just pie in the sky talk, who knows; the Regulator role was knee-jerk reaction to the proposed SL anyway, and fundamentally, getting government involved feels wrong to me.

The PL are trying to fix a problem of iffy owners and dubious practices - but that horse has long ago bolted.

It is so double edged to get promoted into the PL. You can't sit back and do nothing otherwise you will get relegated. You can't commit to multi-year spend cycles as you could be back in the Championship the following season. Because of the huge money gap between the PL and the EFL, it is just fraught with danger.

Then if you manage to stabilise into a lower PL club, the teams above you are getting £2m less per place. That naturally puts you at a massive disadvantage as well.

Then you see clubs like Wigan fall from grace and go into administration and accept a paltry £300k for their wonder kids like Devine. That keeps the lights on for now but sells your future in the process.

The Reading story is sad. Multiple owners who have big ambitions and spend ahead of themselves. The latest one through the door in 2017 has been the worst. The mad thing is that their academy has Category 1 status and guys like our own John Polston get these kids to first team level. Last year they finished a game with 9 academy players on the pitch. The U21 side sit one place below Liverpool in PL2 as we speak. They're actually doing a lot right in that regards with a decent amount of money received for Olise.

Reading need new owners who have Millwall's mindset. Millwall see Championship football as special. They know they are surrounded by big PL clubs in London and just fight to keep a status in the city. They're always at risk of dropping to League 1 and have a respect for that in the way the club is run. They don't ever plan for PL and when they have fallen to League 1 they've fought their way back again.

 

[Spursex]

It is so double edged to get promoted into the PL. You can't sit back and do nothing otherwise you will get relegated. You can't commit to multi-year spend cycles as you could be back in the Championship the following season. Because of the huge money gap between the PL and the EFL, it is just fraught with danger.

Then if you manage to stabilise into a lower PL club, the teams above you are getting £2m less per place. That naturally puts you at a massive disadvantage as well.

Then you see clubs like Wigan fall from grace and go into administration and accept a paltry £300k for their wonder kids like Devine. That keeps the lights on for now but sells your future in the process.

The Reading story is sad. Multiple owners who have big ambitions and spend ahead of themselves. The latest one through the door in 2017 has been the worst. The mad thing is that their academy has Category 1 status and guys like our own John Polston get these kids to first team level. Last year they finished a game with 9 academy players on the pitch. The U21 side sit one place below Liverpool in PL2 as we speak. They're actually doing a lot right in that regards with a decent amount of money received for Olise.

Reading need new owners who have Millwall's mindset. Millwall see Championship football as special. They know they are surrounded by big PL clubs in London and just fight to keep a status in the city. They're always at risk of dropping to League 1 and have a respect for that in the way the club is run. They don't ever plan for PL and when they have fallen to League 1 they've fought their way back again.

Nottingham Forest will soon be in Reading's boat at this rate, and perhaps even Everton's will now start seeing what they're facing, if as suggested they are facing yet another punishment; both with highly ambitious owners, who now have had to or will be cutting and running after spending money without factoring in what could go wrong...

We have seen it again and again, of course the fans are loving it whilst it all goes right, but once the slide starts, it's incredibly difficult to halt it.

I just hope the punishment for the chav's and City meets the scale of their crimes.

 

[muttley]

Nottingham Forest will soon be in Reading's boat at this rate, and perhaps even Everton's will now start seeing what they're facing, if as suggested they are facing yet another punishment; both with highly ambitious owners, who now have had to or will be cutting and running after spending money without factoring in what could go wrong...

We have seen it again and again, of course the fans are loving it whilst it all goes right, but once the slide starts, it's incredibly difficult to halt it.

I just hope the punishment for the chav's and City meets the scale of their crimes.

Your last point does raise the point about whether we will ever manage with a "one size fits all" PSR model. A single governance that needs to cater for the Randy Bohlers and the Dave Whelans.

 

[Spursex]

Your last point does raise the point about whether we will ever manage with a "one size fits all" PSR model. A single governance that needs to cater for the Randy Bohlers and the Dave Whelans.

It has long occurred to me that there should be a set figure for 'trading losses' over a three-year period but at a different level for new ownership of a club, I don't believe it's contradictory and could work.

Let's say I buy Crystal Palace at the end of the season because their consortium of owners had reached a 'no more money in' point (which they look like they have).

So I buy them and want to spend on new players, to my mind that process shouldn't be interfered with, but a loss limit must be applied, I'd allow any new owners a double trading loss limit for the first 3 seasons. So £210 million over the 3 years.

That means they can bring new money into the market and give that club real hope of being more than it has probably historically been, it would create fresh, fair competition and stop the elite from being seen to pull the ladder up behind them.

 

[Pompey Yid]

It has long occurred to me that there should be a set figure for 'trading losses' over a three-year period but at a different level for new ownership of a club, I don't believe it's contradictory and could work.

Let's say I buy Crystal Palace at the end of the season because their consortium of owners had reached a 'no more money in' point (which they look like they have).

So I buy them and want to spend on new players, to my mind that process shouldn't be interfered with, but a loss limit must be applied, I'd allow any new owners a double trading loss limit for the first 3 seasons. So £210 million over the 3 years.

That means they can bring new money into the market and give that club real hope of being more than it has probably historically been, it would create fresh, fair competition and stop the elite from being seen to pull the ladder up behind them.

For as little that I know regards running/owning a Football Club that idea sounds very good/simple, but maybe that is the problem...to bloody simple! lol!

 

[Spursex]

Now confirmed:

Everton and Nottingham Forest charged with breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules​

Monday 15 January 2024 16:12, UK

Everton and Nottingham Forest have been charged with breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules.

Premier League clubs are permitted to lose a maximum of £105m over a three-year period (£35m a season).

In November, Everton were deducted 10 points - the largest sanction in the history of the Premier League - for a breach of the profit and sustainability rules. The club are appealing against their punishment.


In the simplest terms, when every Premier League team tots up their annual accounts, they can have made a loss no greater than £105m across the previous three seasons.

Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on.



The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club.

 

[Sockspurs]

Now confirmed:

Everton and Nottingham Forest charged with breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules​

Monday 15 January 2024 16:12, UK

Everton and Nottingham Forest have been charged with breaching Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules.

Premier League clubs are permitted to lose a maximum of £105m over a three-year period (£35m a season).

In November, Everton were deducted 10 points - the largest sanction in the history of the Premier League - for a breach of the profit and sustainability rules. The club are appealing against their punishment.


In the simplest terms, when every Premier League team tots up their annual accounts, they can have made a loss no greater than £105m across the previous three seasons.

Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on.



The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club.

Forest cheated to get promoted via FFP and cheated to stay up.

Hope teams sue

 

[Spursex]

Forest cheated to get promoted via FFP and cheated to stay up.

Hope teams sue

Didn't they change the rules so teams couldn't sue each other for breaches?

 

[Sockspurs]

Didn't they change the rules so teams couldn't sue each other for breaches?

No idea about FL, but they seem to be talk about PL clubs/Ex PL clubs suing

 

[Spursex]

No idea about FL, but they seem to be talk about PL clubs/Ex PL clubs suing

You're right, I must be getting it mixed up with something else:

What happened the last time multiple clubs sued for FFP breaches as Everton face costly legal battle

Everton are on the verge of a legal battle following reports that up to four clubs are planning to sue the Toffees for breaching financial fair play laws.

www.sportbible.com