duke313 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 32 minutes ago, CVByrne said: I forgot these morons still had a platform for the moronic ignorance. The rules they are bound by are the current rules where points deductions are applied in the same season. The rules they are in breach of have been the same rules for years. The moron who wrote the article said "It could be that Everton pass PSR as they will be from August, having suffered relegation in May under the redundant system". Let's clarify for this uber moron. The rules are not being made more lenient, they are being tightened to keep in line with UEFA rules. They are also introducing a salary cap so no PL club has a wage bill bigger than the income of the bottom club. That was agreed by the PL as from next season UEFA CL prize money grows for those involved in it. So just lots of morons needed to create the linked tweet video. Wasn’t aware of this, interesting. But seems easy to get around, player sponsorship will just mysteriously increase with newly formed companies based conveniently in the same country as the clubs owners, sponsoring the players for hundreds of millions. Edited January 15 by duke313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 39 minutes ago, duke313 said: Wasn’t aware of this, interesting. But seems easy to get around, player sponsorship will just mysteriously increase with newly formed companies based conveniently in the same country as the clubs owners, sponsoring the players for hundreds of millions. Grealish immediately appears in more adverts after his move to City. I do wonder if any of those were guaranteed to him as part of the transfer, with the money not coming out of City's pockets. Edited January 15 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 33 minutes ago, MrBlack said: What's the income of the bottom club been the last couple of seasons? Is that not going to be way below what the likes of City and Chelsea spend?! No the wage bill of Man United (who are top) is lower than the income of the bottom club. Hence the salary cap only caps future wage growth and doesn't force teams to cut their wage bill. UEFA rules will kinda do that itself with squad cost rule 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 12 hours ago, CVByrne said: No the wage bill of Man United (who are top) is lower than the income of the bottom club. Hence the salary cap only caps future wage growth and doesn't force teams to cut their wage bill. UEFA rules will kinda do that itself with squad cost rule That doesn’t really make sense though. What happens when a team such as luton finishes bottom? Their income would be a pittance and the amount could change drastically from year to the next, making it impossible to plan for. (Ive probably misunderstood so ignore me if i have 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 7 minutes ago, HeyAnty said: That doesn’t really make sense though. What happens when a team such as luton finishes bottom? Their income would be a pittance and the amount could change drastically from year to the next, making it impossible to plan for. (Ive probably misunderstood so ignore me if i have Looking into it i'm not sure it does either. Southampton, finishing bottom in 2023, made 145m revenue in 2022. Can't find their 2023 figures. United's reported total salary is 200m in 2024. That's a lot of increase to revenue needed for a club that finishes bottom. And Southampton were a relatively long standing PL club... as you say Luton would presumably make much less. @CVByrne are we missing something? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 15 hours ago, CVByrne said: They are also introducing a salary cap so no PL club has a wage bill bigger than the income of the bottom club. That was agreed by the PL as from next season UEFA CL prize money grows for those involved in it. Have you got a link to this anywhere, id never heard of it and struggled to find anything that confirms its coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 6 hours ago, HeyAnty said: That doesn’t really make sense though. What happens when a team such as luton finishes bottom? Their income would be a pittance and the amount could change drastically from year to the next, making it impossible to plan for. (Ive probably misunderstood so ignore me if i have 95% of their income comes from the PL TV deal so the cap is in essence tied to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: Have you got a link to this anywhere, id never heard of it and struggled to find anything that confirms its coming in. It can’t be true. Someone somewhere would be all over it on the internet if that was the case. Would be a massive issue for some of the bigger clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) I believe it was actually multiple of the bottom clubs TV income. Something like that and was voted through I thought. Idea was to cap future wage growth and not force teams to cut current wage bill Edited January 16 by CVByrne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 The Price of Football podcast episode from 23rd October explains it well so search for that and have a listen. I think it's on agenda for being approved at end of this season with updates to PSR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFish Posted January 17 Visiting Supporter Share Posted January 17 Is FFP/PSR restricting Aston Villa's ability to do business? Do you lot think the allowance should be increased beyond the current £105m over 3yrs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 10 minutes ago, TheFish said: Is FFP/PSR restricting Aston Villa's ability to do business? Do you lot think the allowance should be increased beyond the current £105m over 3yrs? Hey (Geordie fan i assume?). There isnt any specific clarity around to what degree FFP is impacting us, however, the fact that Emery has admitted that the sales of A.Ramsey to Burnley, Archer to Sheff Utd and Philogene to Hull in the summer, were to help balance FFP, it points to the fact we are mindful of the limits, but yeah.......not sure where we are specifically with regard to FFP. someone in here might though, as a few others know their stuff with regard to our FFP.....i dont Do you have any idea where Newcastle are exactly in terms of FFP? I think teams should be able to go above 105m, but with specific safeguards like the owner has to physically pay the money up front in to a secure bank account or something, to ensure any level of going above 105m, is entirely funded and secured, also imo it must be cash, not loans, or anything secured against the club, it must be provable, pure cash from the owner, that they have committed to a secured account that only the club can access to ensure it isnt removed etc etc, it also must be proven to be clean money, etc. However, im not sure that would work right now due to some clubs allegedly artificially inflating sponsorship, funding etc, to give them more spending power, so with this issue, my proposal above would just make it more unfair/worse for the majority of clubs. While i think FFP should be altered to some degree, i think the priority should be dealing harshly with clubs who are doing underhand stuff to inflate their spending power, you cant make any real changes until this is sorted imo, as any changes must be based on the idea that the current system to control finances is working for all teams, which it clearly isnt. Edited January 17 by MaVilla 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa82 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 The rule is already that the owner of the club must pay 90 of the 105 million from his own pocket. Either in cash or buy more shares in the club, as our owners have done many times. If the owner does not contribute money, the club cannot lose more than about five million a year. The fact that there are three years that are looked at together means that it is much better to lose 35 million each year than to go to zero for two years and then lose 105 in one year. The loss of 105 is carried over for two more years, and means that you have to break even for the next two years. A loss of 105m means that you have to spend four years in zero to stay within the regulations, and are then limited to 105m in five years, and not 175m. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFish Posted January 17 Visiting Supporter Share Posted January 17 11 minutes ago, MaVilla said: Hey (Geordie fan i assume?). There isnt any specific clarity around to what degree FFP is impacting us, however, the fact that Emery has admitted that the sales of A.Ramsey to Burnley, Archer to Sheff Utd and Philogene to Hull in the summer, were to help balance FFP, it points to the fact we are mindful of the limits, but yeah.......not sure where we are specifically with regard to FFP. someone in here might though, as a few others know their stuff with regard to our FFP.....i dont Did Ramsey, Archer and Philogene all come through the academy? If so, they're pure profit in terms of FFP. Just like Grealish was. 11 minutes ago, MaVilla said: Do you have any idea where Newcastle are exactly in terms of FFP? Close tot he limit I think. Well, when I say that I mean we've spent a shit load and were we not in dire straits because of injuries and suspensions (Bruno is 1 yellow card away from a 2 game ban) I don't think we'd be bothering much with this window at all. As it stands I'd not be surprised to see us spend a bit on a player or two. I think the preference is a loan deal, with an option to buy so the fee goes on a later set of accounts, but who knows? 11 minutes ago, MaVilla said: I think teams should be able to go above 105m, but with specific safeguards like the owner has to physically pay the money up front in to a secure bank account or something, to ensure any level of going above 105m, is entirely funded and secured, also imo it must be cash, not loans, or anything secured against the club, it must be provable, pure cash from the owner, that they have committed to a secured account that only the club can access to ensure it isnt removed etc etc, it also must be proven to be clean money, etc. When you say clean money, do you mean not covered in the blood of dissidents ? I think that's a fair idea, it speaks more to the original idea behind FFP/PSR; protecting the future of the club from the actions of bad owners. 11 minutes ago, MaVilla said: However, im not sure that would work right now due to some clubs allegedly artificially inflating sponsorship, funding etc, to give them more spending power, so with this issue, my proposal above would just make it more unfair/worse for the majority of clubs. While i think FFP should be altered to some degree, i think the priority should be dealing harshly with clubs who are doing underhand stuff to inflate their spending power, you cant make any real changes until this is sorted imo, as any changes must be based on the idea that the current system to control finances is working for all teams, which it clearly isnt. From a club whose owners are trying to find ways to pump more money into the club's accounts I am shocked and appalled at the insinuation. No, I get it, theoretically Newcastle could sell the naming rights to SJP for £100m for 1yr to A Totally Unrelated PIF Owned Company, and that's clearly unsporting horseshit. I have to say it stinks a bit when Man City are self-sponsored, Everton got more for their training ground sponsorship than we did for our front of shirt sponsor. BUT, I don't think it's within the spirit of the sport to suddenly have commercial revenues on par with clubs who've been at the top for years. From my perspective, I don't want to cheat at Football Manager, I want any future success to be earned. I just don't think the current PSR rules are up to date (£105m over 3 years in 2011 looks a lot different to £105m over 3 yrs in 2024). I also think that as it stands it keeps the gap between the haves and have nots wider than it should. How can clubs like Brighton, Aston Villa, Everton, hope to keep pace with the 'Big 6' when you have to sell your best players in order to create enough FFP wriggle room for the purchase of new players? Especially when you're likely having to sell your best players to one of the Big 6? You're strengthening them, weakening yourself and gambling that the (say) £100m you get for Jack Grealish translates to a better overall team. Say you want to spend again, and the best financial deal on the table is Man Utd's £80m bid for Ollie Watkins... You spend that on two £40m players, there's no guarantee that both or either will be a success. Suddenly you've made one of the teams most likely to be caught much better, and you're now having to find a reliable striker, and someone to buy the flops from you. And if Ollie flops at Man Utd? they don't care, because of their deals with pillow companies and tractor oil partners, they can write it off and go off and sign Ivan Toney as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 41 minutes ago, TheFish said: Did Ramsey, Archer and Philogene all come through the academy? If so, they're pure profit in terms of FFP. Just like Grealish was. Close tot he limit I think. Well, when I say that I mean we've spent a shit load and were we not in dire straits because of injuries and suspensions (Bruno is 1 yellow card away from a 2 game ban) I don't think we'd be bothering much with this window at all. As it stands I'd not be surprised to see us spend a bit on a player or two. I think the preference is a loan deal, with an option to buy so the fee goes on a later set of accounts, but who knows? When you say clean money, do you mean not covered in the blood of dissidents ? I think that's a fair idea, it speaks more to the original idea behind FFP/PSR; protecting the future of the club from the actions of bad owners. From a club whose owners are trying to find ways to pump more money into the club's accounts I am shocked and appalled at the insinuation. No, I get it, theoretically Newcastle could sell the naming rights to SJP for £100m for 1yr to A Totally Unrelated PIF Owned Company, and that's clearly unsporting horseshit. I have to say it stinks a bit when Man City are self-sponsored, Everton got more for their training ground sponsorship than we did for our front of shirt sponsor. BUT, I don't think it's within the spirit of the sport to suddenly have commercial revenues on par with clubs who've been at the top for years. From my perspective, I don't want to cheat at Football Manager, I want any future success to be earned. I just don't think the current PSR rules are up to date (£105m over 3 years in 2011 looks a lot different to £105m over 3 yrs in 2024). I also think that as it stands it keeps the gap between the haves and have nots wider than it should. How can clubs like Brighton, Aston Villa, Everton, hope to keep pace with the 'Big 6' when you have to sell your best players in order to create enough FFP wriggle room for the purchase of new players? Especially when you're likely having to sell your best players to one of the Big 6? You're strengthening them, weakening yourself and gambling that the (say) £100m you get for Jack Grealish translates to a better overall team. Say you want to spend again, and the best financial deal on the table is Man Utd's £80m bid for Ollie Watkins... You spend that on two £40m players, there's no guarantee that both or either will be a success. Suddenly you've made one of the teams most likely to be caught much better, and you're now having to find a reliable striker, and someone to buy the flops from you. And if Ollie flops at Man Utd? they don't care, because of their deals with pillow companies and tractor oil partners, they can write it off and go off and sign Ivan Toney as well. Hey; Yes, Philogene, Archer & Ramsey were youth products, same as Chukwuemeka who we sold to Chelsea. Nah i dont mean any of the "blood on your hands" stuff, im not in to that, to me, Saudi is a country that is recognised, and all countries trade with it, why should football refuse to trade/deal with them when every other area of life, business and govt does, doesnt make sense to me, if the UK govt want to ban Saudi investment, make it illegal or something, if its illegal, its illegal, if its legal, its legal, that simple tbh, to expect football to be the moral standard and take the moral high ground, considering how bent it is from top to bottom, is laughable tbh, its like asking the mafia to not be naughty boys, football has no morals, it tries to pretend it does, but it doesnt really, so to expect football to act morally......that horse bolted a few decades ago tbh, and the gate doesnt even exist any more. What i do mean though, for any club or owner(s), inflating funding or sponsorship beyond what is reasonable and in line with the market, ie: almost entirely what Man City are accused of, what some people say Newcastle are trying to do (they may not be - but you know what i mean), or the nonsense that Barcelona, PSG, Real Madrid and all those other clubs seem to just get away with, with no real questions asked, or actions taken. the only issue i do have with saudi, is the risk of what they are doing with players, ie: they arent subject to FFP, they are throwing money around, and clubs can possibly benefit from this in some ways by artificial (but technically legal by FFP) money movements to increase/decrease costs, now, this isnt Newcastle biased, i think its something many clubs may try to leverage if it becomes acceptable, and i think it could quickly skew the wider game when FFP related clubs can deal with a league that has literally zero financial controls and enough money to buy a few nations in cash, its a recipe for disaster, my point is, i honestly think that if the saudi league clubs want their money sloshing around in the transfer market, they need to be subject to FFP (or some other controls agreed by all), and all its legal implications, anyway, thats another conversation. Edited January 17 by MaVilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFish Posted January 17 Visiting Supporter Share Posted January 17 6 minutes ago, MaVilla said: Hey; Yes, Philogene, Archer & Ramsey were youth products, same as Chukwuemeka who we sold to Chelsea. Yeah they're all pure profit. You should be golden when it comes to FFP. I think I read you've a new Adidas deal as well? That'll help too. If you stay the course and get CL next season, well there's another flood of money and renown coming your way. 6 minutes ago, MaVilla said: Nah i dont mean any of the "blood on your hands" stuff, im not in to that, to me, Saudi is a country that is recognised, and all countries trade with it, why should football refuse to trade/deal with them when every other area of life, business and govt does, doesnt make sense to me, if the UK govt want to ban Saudi investment, make it illegal or something, if its illegal, its illegal, if its legal, its legal, that simple tbh, to expect football to be the moral standard and take the moral high ground, considering how bent it is from top to bottom, is laughable tbh, its like asking the mafia to not be naughty boys, football has no morals, it tries to pretend it does, but it doesnt really, so to expect football to act morally......that horse bolted a few decades ago tbh, and the gate doesnt even exist any more. That's refreshing, often on other message boards the view is that any success we get, be it earned or no, is ruined because of the owners. 6 minutes ago, MaVilla said: What i do mean though, for any club or owner(s), inflating funding or sponsorship beyond what is reasonable and in line with the market, ie: almost entirely what Man City are accused of, what some people say Newcastle are trying to do (they may not be - but you know what i mean), or the nonsense that Barcelona, PSG, Real Madrid and all those other clubs seem to just get away with, with no real questions asked, or actions taken. There were accusations that Newcastle's deal with PIF owned SELA was cheating the system, but that deal was scrutinised by the PL and £25m for a CL team backed by ridiculously wealthy owners, on an upward trajectory... it is about right. Less than the established elite, more than, say, West Ham. The deals struck by Man City for their stadium naming rights, or Everton and their training ground (ffs) were hugely inflated for the time. Agree with the rest of your post too. 6 minutes ago, MaVilla said: the only issue i do have with saudi, is the risk of what they are doing with players, ie: they arent subject to FFP, they are throwing money around, and clubs can possibly benefit from this in some ways by artificial (but technically legal by FFP) money movements to increase/decrease costs, now, this isnt Newcastle biased, i think its something many clubs may try to leverage if it becomes acceptable, and i think it could quickly skew the wider game when FFP related clubs can deal with a league that has literally zero financial controls, its a recipie for disaster, my point is, i honestly think that if the saudi league clubs want their money sloshing around in the transfer market, they need to be subject to FFP (or some other controls agreed by all), and all its legal implications, anyway, thats another conversation. Ahh, gotcha. Yeah the Saudi league could be the loopiest of holes for us and others. But I think it's the same as the Chinese league and the Russian league before that. They'll buy a ton of hasbeens and never-will-bes, but given the average attendance is something like 7k, I just don't see the money going into the league as fast as it goes out. With players like Henderson, Firmino and Benzema wanting out asap, I'm sure lesser players will want to leave soonish too. So for all it could be a way to offload expensive players now, I don't think that window will be open for very long at all. We sold Saint Maximin to a PIF owned club there for about €25m, his market value on Transfermarkt at the time was closer to €30m and I reckon he would have moved for a similar amount to other clubs had he not been leaving us. He was linked with a €40m move to AC Milan or Spurs earlier that summer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCollins29 Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Do we think we'll be in a better position FFP wise come the summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 25 minutes ago, GingerCollins29 said: Do we think we'll be in a better position FFP wise come the summer? It's a rolling three years situation. Things don't really change massively unless you make a big sale etc. It's a complex system but overall best way to think about it is in two specific ways 1 Revenue, if we have lots of sustainable money coming in we can spend to levels that match it. So grow revenue and we can spend 2 Squad, if we have built up a quality squad of players who have been at the club for years we've amortised away most of the fee we paid and now they're highly valued assets on the balance sheet. Newcastle can buy lots of good expensive players but it takes years for the fees to be "paid down". Think of it like buying a house. We can both own expensive houses but if I've 5 years left on mortgage and you've 25 years we're in different situations despite having the same house to live in. We are at the 5 years left on the house stage. Martinez, Luiz, McGinn, Watkins, Kamara, Tielemans, Cash, Konsa, Mings, Ramsey. These are all no mortgage left or very little left. This means our squad is worth far more than Newcastle's if we sold it as we have little little left to repay let's say. People like to hate on our Sporting Directors but we are in a very good position squad based. Edited January 18 by CVByrne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaVilla Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 need to sell more hotdogs and beers, clearly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 31 minutes ago, MaVilla said: need to sell more hotdogs and beers, clearly.... Every time I go I try but despite having 20 people serving they only sell 6 beers at half time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts