Will FFP finally put spurs where they belong?

The best thing about the likes of City voting against it and threatening legal action is it means the rules must have genuine teeth to them.

If they didn’t really make a difference I doubt City etc would be that bothered by them.

6 teams voted against, and 2 abstained - I would not be completely shocked if Spurs were among those 8, but it would be interesting to see the teams.

I imagine City and Newcastle abstained.

At first guess, I think the small teams would have been united in supporting the changes, but that the "Super League" teams might have wanted the option - even if they don't currently have plans to use such transactions.

Would have thought Man U either voted with the 12 or abstained , unless anyone knows better do they have any associated parties like some of the other clubs.

On a FFP vote it was believed City voted against so pretty odds on they were one of the six to vote against this new rule.


PS The statement by Chelsea in the article quite funny considering their dodgy finances.

Levy will be the main driving force behind these new rules so we will 100% be one of the teams who voted for it.

anyone with access?

SirHarryHotspur said:

Would have thought Man U either voted with the 12 or abstained , unless anyone knows better do they have any associated parties like some of the other clubs.

On a FFP vote it was believed City voted against so pretty odds on they were one of the six to vote against this new rule.

Premier League clubs vote in favour of FFP

Premier League clubs have voted in favour of introducing a Financial Fair Play deal and restrictions on wages

en.espn.co.uk

PS The statement by Chelsea in the article quite funny considering their dodgy finances.

Click to expand...

Agree. Man U are biggest global brand and revenue generator in the prem so I doubt they would need to favour dodgy sponsorship deals.

SirHarryHotspur said:

Would have thought Man U either voted with the 12 or abstained , unless anyone knows better do they have any associated parties like some of the other clubs.

On a FFP vote it was believed City voted against so pretty odds on they were one of the six to vote against this new rule.

Premier League clubs vote in favour of FFP

Premier League clubs have voted in favour of introducing a Financial Fair Play deal and restrictions on wages

en.espn.co.uk

PS The statement by Chelsea in the article quite funny considering their dodgy finances.

Click to expand...

Once the Ratcliffe deal goes through they’ll be linked to Nice won’t they. Not to mention Ineos etc.

dovahkiin said:

anyone with access?

Premier League tightens sponsorship rules despite Man City legal threat

Vote exposes split among top-flight clubs on issue of associated-party deals, with champions believed to have threatened a legal challenge

www.thetimes.co.uk

Click to expand...

Premier League tightens sponsorship rules despite Man City legal threat​

Vote exposes split among top-flight clubs on issue of associated-party deals, with champions believed to have threatened a legal challenge

Premier League clubs have approved tougher new rules for associated-party deals by the narrowest of votes despite the threat of a legal challenge from one of its members — believed to be Manchester City.

The rules cover sponsorship deals with companies connected to the clubs, and any player transfers between clubs in the same ownership group to ensure they are of “fair market value”.

They aim to stop sponsorship deals being artificially inflated or for clubs to benefit from buying players cheaply — or selling them for inflated prices — from or to associated clubs.

Twelve clubs voted in favour and six against at a meeting in London today, with two clubs abstaining, sources have confirmed to The Times. It is thought to be the closest vote in the Premier League’s history — just about meeting the requirement of a two-thirds majority to pass — with some clubs suggesting that indicates a fractured relationship and a lack of unity.

The clubs earlier heard that one member had warned it could take the Premier League to arbitration over the rules as they were anti-competitive. The Premier League responded by saying it was confident the rules were compatible with English law.

The associated party rules particularly impact upon Manchester City and Newcastle United, both of whom have owners connected to Gulf states, with City being part of a large ownership group which also includes clubs in countries including Spain, Australia and the United States. Chelsea also had to have a shirt sponsorship deal with a related party approved.

City are believed to be the club who warned of possible further action but they would not confirm or deny if that was the case. Sources told The Times that the warning was not made by either Newcastle or Chelsea.

The rules are aimed at preventing clubs signing inflated sponsorship deals with companies that are connected with them. They were first approved in December 2021 after the takeover of Newcastle by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

The Premier League confirmed in a statement that amendments had been agreed to the rules by clubs at a shareholders meeting. It said: “Following a full review of the existing Associated Party Transactions Rules and Fair Market Value assessment protocols, clubs agreed to a series of amendments to further enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system.”

Tucker said:

Once the Ratcliffe deal goes through they’ll be linked to Nice won’t they. Not to mention Ineos etc.

Click to expand...

Depends on the small print I suppose , how much of either club will he own , maybe he will sell up his stake in Nice. Ineos also are one of our partners.

SirHarryHotspur said:

Depends on the small print I suppose , how much of either club will he own , maybe he will sell up his stake in Nice. Ineos also are one of our partners.

Click to expand...

I bet they won’t be for much longer.

If a majority vote for something (on competition grounds), surely Cith have no leg to stand on legally?

Secondly, these restrictions must be turning away potential PL-club buyers who are looking to get on the gravy train/sportwash etc? As it restricts them from doing what they want and are used to (doing what they like to get what they want)

Great news.

rossdapep said:

If a majority vote for something (on competition grounds), surely Cith have no leg to stand on legally?

Click to expand...

Hopefully. I think it’s them baring their teeth more than anything. They know they’re going to get whacked by those charges, and they want to show the premier league that they’ll start arguing everything going forward. They don’t have to worry about legal costs, they have infinite money and the weight of a nation behind them.

Tucker said:

Hopefully. I think it’s them baring their teeth more than anything. They know they’re going to get whacked by those charges, and they want to show the premier league that they’ll start arguing everything going forward. They don’t have to worry about legal costs, they have infinite money and the weight of a nation behind them.

Click to expand...

Someone made a great point, surely all these legal costs, as its the legal entity of Man City hiring these lawyers will have to show on their company accounts. I read the cost to Man city will be in the 10's of millions, unless they are been paid through others sources? which I believe is one of the charges been brought against man city of paying staff through other non related companies.

spursyido1 said:

Premier League tightens sponsorship rules despite Man City legal threat​

Vote exposes split among top-flight clubs on issue of associated-party deals, with champions believed to have threatened a legal challenge

Premier League clubs have approved tougher new rules for associated-party deals by the narrowest of votes despite the threat of a legal challenge from one of its members — believed to be Manchester City.

The rules cover sponsorship deals with companies connected to the clubs, and any player transfers between clubs in the same ownership group to ensure they are of “fair market value”.

They aim to stop sponsorship deals being artificially inflated or for clubs to benefit from buying players cheaply — or selling them for inflated prices — from or to associated clubs.

Twelve clubs voted in favour and six against at a meeting in London today, with two clubs abstaining, sources have confirmed to The Times. It is thought to be the closest vote in the Premier League’s history — just about meeting the requirement of a two-thirds majority to pass — with some clubs suggesting that indicates a fractured relationship and a lack of unity.

The clubs earlier heard that one member had warned it could take the Premier League to arbitration over the rules as they were anti-competitive. The Premier League responded by saying it was confident the rules were compatible with English law.

The associated party rules particularly impact upon Manchester City and Newcastle United, both of whom have owners connected to Gulf states, with City being part of a large ownership group which also includes clubs in countries including Spain, Australia and the United States. Chelsea also had to have a shirt sponsorship deal with a related party approved.

City are believed to be the club who warned of possible further action but they would not confirm or deny if that was the case. Sources told The Times that the warning was not made by either Newcastle or Chelsea.

The rules are aimed at preventing clubs signing inflated sponsorship deals with companies that are connected with them. They were first approved in December 2021 after the takeover of Newcastle by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

The Premier League confirmed in a statement that amendments had been agreed to the rules by clubs at a shareholders meeting. It said: “Following a full review of the existing Associated Party Transactions Rules and Fair Market Value assessment protocols, clubs agreed to a series of amendments to further enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the system.”

Click to expand...

Ironic that City feels they breach anti-competition laws.

dovahkiin said:

i suppose this might go here

Click to expand...

This pleases me.

Man City taken over by a nation state in 2008. The funnelling of oil money through sponsorships started almost immediately from that moment. Only taken the EPL 15 years to bolt the stable door

Drink!Drink! said:

Man City taken over by a nation state in 2008. The funnelling of oil money through sponsorships started almost immediately from that moment. Only taken the EPL 15 years to bolt the stable door

Click to expand...

But were the rules that are in place today on showing that a sponsorship deal is market value applicable in 2008. All deals now like Chelsea's shirt deal now have to be scrutinised to show fair market value , not sure that was the case in 2008.
Also the Der Spiegel leaks have given the PL something to investigate and hopefully they have uncovered irrefutable evidence of wrong doing.
Suspecting someone is cheating doesn't always result in immediate action look at the Lance Armstrong case , probably was dope tested loads of times and passed but it took years to get to the truth.

Doesn’t looked chuffed coming out of the meeting earlier…..

Hotspur33 said:

Also the revenue that Spurs generate through the stadium can and likely will be replicated by other clubs soon.

Click to expand...

This is very wrong.

But let's just do the exercise of going through the clubs in order to be clear on this point.

Firstly, there's no location in the UK that can regularly generate the type of money that our stadium does apart from London. There's a few reasons for this, but they mainly focus on Tourism, Corporate spend and overall % of the UK economy. The next largest economic city in London is of course Manchester, but it has around a quarter of the economy of London when it comes to this type of spend.

So that gives us the following clubs:

Arsenal: If they could do what we do then they would have done it. Yes they are trying to ramp things up at the Emirates, but the lack of the retractable pitch, along with the stadium not being anywhere near as modern and certainly not a "venue" means they are well behind and won't ever catch-up. Also being called the Emirates will cause issues with certain types of organisations wanting to hold events there.

Chelsea: They would need a brand new stadium for that and even under the glory days of RA they couldn't get that project off the ground. Zero chance we seem them catching us on this front in the next 10+ years.

West Ham: They don't even own their stadium.

After that you have:

Man Utd: Would need a massive amount of investment to get it to that state that would attract mega events, but even if it did they're going to struggle to replicate the success we've had as the addressable market in Manchester is much smaller.

City: I can see City starting to use this as another loophole to funnel massive amounts of funds through, so in that way yes.

Liverpool: Similar issue to Utd with an even smaller addressable market for events.

Newcastle: LOL.

Villa: Would need a massive redevelopment project and I don't think they even have that space on their current site. Plus a smaller addressable market and they aren't even in the town, so transport etc.. for tourists is already not great.

Bluto Blutarsky said:

6 teams voted against, and 2 abstained - I would not be completely shocked if Spurs were among those 8, but it would be interesting to see the teams.

I imagine City and Newcastle abstained.

At first guess, I think the small teams would have been united in supporting the changes, but that the "Super League" teams might have wanted the option - even if they don't currently have plans to use such transactions.

Click to expand...

I would be, it's literally the opposite of the club's entire culture right now, we are all about becoming the world's most sustainable club and that includes financially. This rule literally gives us a massive advantage and it's what Levy has been "holding us back" for all these years - so that when this comes into force we're in the perfect position to take the opportunity and move to an Elite level club.

We have an Elite stadium and training facilities. We have some Elite players and Elite coaching setup. But until the playing field is levelled from a spending point of view we will never get into that category.