Man United‘s „losses“ are mostly interest payments on historical debt, loaded on to the club when the Glazers purchased it with money loaned and secured on the club (and its future revenue) itself.
-
All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.
Financial Fair Play (FFP)
- Thread starter Hawkeye1947
- Start date
Robertson
Viv Anderson
Interesting article.A straight-forward breakdown of Premier League revenue and expenditure that paints bare the problems clubs like Forest have in trying to even compete in the PL:
Premier League clubs' £1bn losses in 11 charts
BBC Sport breaks down the Premier League clubs' £1bn of losses in 11 charts.www.bbc.co.uk
Sobering stuff, compared to the supposed „Sky Six“.
Suggests our wage bill is the problem for us rather than transfer fees.
Also our debt is a bit higher than I thought.
And finally there is no f***ing way Man City’s £341m “commercial income” is completely legit. I’m just not having it.
Est.1865
Screw The PL
If you were running the EPL you would be wise to consider giving both us and Everton our points back, say the whole system is a shit show, and start over.
That is - as I understand it - the main thrust of the 115 charges levied against Manchester City, that they have allegedly inflated, to excess, their commercial revenue, to give them additional financial headroom under the regulations.
Hungry Horace
First Team Squad
Surely if sustainability is being looked at then massive losses due to debt comes high up?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hungry Horace
First Team Squad
Some Oil Sheiks buying ltd edition Jack Grealish key rings for £10,000,000, that sort of thing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You would think - logically - that would be the case; but actually it seems fine to the EPL if a club „borrows“ hundreds of millions of pounds commercially (as the Glazers did) even if that means they are technically massively indebted; the interest payments on the various bonds (and the refinancing of those bonds) mean the club, whilst being said hundreds of millions „in debt“ is actually paying off that debt at agreed rates.
Sort of, I believe - and again, this is all alleged - the crux of the accusations were that they inflated the value of commercial sponsorship and commercial services provided to the club by their commercial business partners, the majority of whom - by an alleged complete and utter coincidence of course - happened to be companies based in the United Arab Emirates, and specifically in Abu Dhabi, home of their owners, or companies with strong links to Abu Dhabi, or other Abu Dhabi-based commercial enterprises.
All conveniently to be implemented just in time to remove possibility of points deductions for Manchester City, Chelsea et al.
EXCLUSIVE: Premier League eyeing ABOLISHING points deductions
EXCLUSIVE BY MIKE KEEGAN: Premier League clubs are considering abolishing points deductions and introducing a 'luxury tax', Mail Sport can reveal.www.dailymail.co.uk
And a 'luxury tax' to them is going to be loose change.
Which is absolutely a „Get Out Of Jail Free“ card for the Premier League there.
City‘s billionaire owners can simply throw even more money at them, as can Chelsea‘s. No harm, no foul, for them, unlike clubs who have tried to compete with one hand tied behind their backs.
IdiotTricky
First Team Squad
Imho, Marinakis should take a break from punching TV's and build himself a throne at the CG with a season ticket cost of, idk, £70M+. Seems perfectly legit.
Or maybe sound out refrigeration companies owned by life-long fans for next year's sponsorship?
Or maybe sound out refrigeration companies owned by life-long fans for next year's sponsorship?
Timothy Pope
I know that Nuno that I know that Nuno that I know
And how come Bournemouth are in profit??
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
I'm still dying to see which other teams have breached over the last 10 years and have gone unpunished.
GOBIAS
Ian Bowyer
How will we ever know this Notch?
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
It's going to take some hard graft and almost forensic accounting to do it. Maguire might be the placed to but it would depend on whether he's prepared to be the guy to blow the lid on it all.
Redemption
Chief Eye Roller
Leicester breached in 2012/13. They were £21m over and after 4 or 5 years eventually paid a £3m fine.
PlayedOnGrass
First Team Squad
That’s where the majority of their 115 charges lie.
The problem is proving it
Robertson
Viv Anderson
There was something in their accounts about £71m in exceptional income in the form of an interest free loan from a subsidiary. Or something. I didn’t fully understand it, or why they were allowed to do this.
Master Yates
John Robertson
If the luxury tax is about encouraging sustainability, then it needs to be held back and used to stop clubs from going bust, not distributed about among other clubs. How does that help anything at all?
It’s all well and good Newcastle dishing out hundreds of millions of luxury tax to the Brentfords and Brightons of this world as they buy their way into the elite a la Chelsea and City, but if the UK government ever sanctioned the Saudis like they did Abramovich (unlikely) and Newcastle ended up in the shit financially, how would any of that luxury tax help them out?
The PL need to work out what the exam question is before trying to answer it. If they want to be the superstar premium standard league in the world, with all the crazy money as part of that, then let clubs spend what they want.
If it’s truly sustainability they are worried about, then there are pretty simple ways to do that.
But flip flopping around just means they end up with a hotch potch of regs and a f***ing mess. A bit like the handball law nowadays.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s all well and good Newcastle dishing out hundreds of millions of luxury tax to the Brentfords and Brightons of this world as they buy their way into the elite a la Chelsea and City, but if the UK government ever sanctioned the Saudis like they did Abramovich (unlikely) and Newcastle ended up in the shit financially, how would any of that luxury tax help them out?
The PL need to work out what the exam question is before trying to answer it. If they want to be the superstar premium standard league in the world, with all the crazy money as part of that, then let clubs spend what they want.
If it’s truly sustainability they are worried about, then there are pretty simple ways to do that.
But flip flopping around just means they end up with a hotch potch of regs and a f***ing mess. A bit like the handball law nowadays.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gyros Peter
Sauce salad?
My guess is all of them.
The current PSR was starting to work. Very quiet January transfer window showed this. Next thing clubs would have to begin to reign in ludicrous wages given to players. We have complained that current rules make it hard for the likes of us to break into the elite but if Saudi backed clubs can spend what they want the divide will become greater.
Senior Flange Technician
Andy!
Simply make owners responsible for debts incurred by clubs.
Robert Learnshaw
COYR
So, Everton find out their 2nd deduction tomorrow or Monday?
Their ground is powered by wind-power, so no electricity bill for them!
The problem there is, most companies are set up with limited liability, so the „debt“ ends up with the company, not the nominated Director (which under UK company law, is how it works).
So - for a bad example - were such a rule in place, „Big“ Evangelos could just let „Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd.“ rack-up tens of millions in debt, and if that debt became unserviceable - for example, in the event of relegation - he could in theory, just walk away and let the „company“ become insolvent and be liquidated.
This was what (very nearly) happened with the sheep-shaggers; had not the bloke who bailed them out stepped in, Mel Morris could have just allowed the company to be wound-up, with very little personal risk to himself (granted, that would have been f***ing hilarious, but there you go).
Not that I am in any way suggesting that Evangelos would do such a thing (I am sure he would not) but it is very difficult to make individual Directors responsible for financial liabilities of a company, unless it can be legally proven that they have (for example) acted fraudulently, or traded whilst insolvent - the current ongoing court case between Hewlett-Packard and the (former) Director of Autonomy, Mike Lynch, is relevant here, as HP claim he fraudulently inflated the value of Autonomy to HP, so he could sell it to them for billions and make a fat profit; Lynch maintains the value was fair, and HP dropped the ball by allowing over half the management team to leave after they bought it, and then the rudderless company basically collapsed, forcing HP to have to write-down its value by about 8Bn dollars.